THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 510 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Kavita Kumari …….Petitioner Versus Smt. Saya Devi and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Preeti Steta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 20.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2017, affirming order dated 25.08.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Petition No.236-I-11/90-II-11, whereby domestic violence report submitted at the behest of the petitioner herein, came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respective parties are that the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) lodged a complaint before Protection Officer, Chowki Maniyar, Tehsil, Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein domestic violence by the respondents i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in- law and one other relative. Besides above, complainant also claimed her share in ancestral house owned and possessed by respondent No.1. However, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, having taken note of the fact that petitioner-complainant is already in receipt of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- per month alongwith Rs. 1500/- towards rented accommodation, proceeded to reject the application, holding that no relief qua share, if any, in the ancestral house owned and possessed by of respondent No.1 could be granted in the instant proceedings. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, complainant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.03.2018. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside both the orders/judgments passed by learned Courts 3 below, whereby her claim/prayer qua share in the ancestral house came to be rejected. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Preeti Steta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that both the Courts below, while deciding the case at hand, failed to take note of the fact that petitioner herein continues to be a member of the family because divorce decree granted by competent Court of law was set aside by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that petitioner on account of her being a member of joint family is entitled to claim share in the ancestral house. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material adduced on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, affirming order dated 25.08.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same as such, no interference is called for. 6. Though, it is not in dispute that decree of divorce granted by competent Court of law in the divorce petition filed by the husband of the petitioner was set aside by this Court, but once it stood proved 4 on record that husband of the petitioner-complainant was living separately in a rented accommodation, coupled with the fact that competent Court of law in earlier proceedings initiated by the complainant under Domestic Violence Act had already granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- peer month as well as rental allowance in the sum of Rs. 1500/-, there was no occasion, if any, for the Courts below to consider and decide the same prayer. Moreover, prayer made in the application made to the Protection Officer clearly reveals that through instant proceedings petitioner herein had actually prayed that she be provided her share in the ancestral house owned and possessed by respondent No.1, but such prayer of her rightly came to be rejected by both the Courts below because entitlement of share, if any, in the ancestral house of the petitioner cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. 7. In earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, it stands duly proved that house in question qua which petitioner has staked her claim, belongs to respondent No.1 and same was not ancestral property. It also stands proved in earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner/complainant that her husband was ousted from his parental house, as a result thereof, he was compelled to live in rented accommodation. Court concerned taking note of afore fact directed the husband of the 5 petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/- on account of rent, but committed no illegality in rejecting the prayer made at the behest of the petitioner to provide shared household. 8. Since in the instant proceedings only prayer, which came to be made before the Courts below, was that she being daughter-in- law of respondent No.1 is entitled to her share in the house, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Courts below while rejecting the afore prayer on the ground that such prayer, if any, made in the instant proceedings cannot be considered. 9. At this stage, it is also apt to take note of the fact that an FIR was also lodged qua the similar incident, however competent Court of law acquitted the accused, named in the FIR, i.e. respondents herein. Though appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 01.03.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, however same was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2015. 10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the judgment dated 20.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, affirming order dated 25.08.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 6 Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and as such, same is upheld. The present petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 27, 2026 (shankar)