2026:HHC:37388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 528 of 2026 Reserved on: 20.08.2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Rachna Verma ...Petitioner Versus Inderjeet Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Vijay Panchta, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2026 passed by learned Chairman, H.P. STAT, exercising the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:37388 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2025 (DV Act) for seeking various reliefs, including interim maintenance, protection order and residence order. It was asserted that the applicant and respondent were married to each other on 22.10.2023. The respondent maltreated the applicant, and he compelled her to sleep on the floor. He continuously taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent locked the Kitchen and denied her access to food. A compromise was effected between the parties in which the respondent apologised for his behaviour and requested her to return to her matrimonial home. When the applicant attempted to return to her matrimonial home on 22.12.2023, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was threatened with dire consequences. The respondent is employed as an Assistant Professor in a Government College. He is earning a monthly salary of ₹1,00,000/-. Hence, an application for interim maintenance of ₹40,000/- per month was sought along with the other reliefs. 3. The application was opposed by filing a reply. It was admitted that the marriage between the applicant and respondent 3 2026:HHC:37388 was solemnised. It was asserted that the applicant resided in her matrimonial home for 4-5 days and the applicant treated the respondent as a stranger. Her behaviour was abnormal from the very beginning, and she even refused to participate in the wedding photograph. The applicant persistently refused to cohabit with the respondent and misbehaved with him and his family members. The respondent shared his concerns with the applicant’s father on 28.10.2023, who said that he would counsel the applicant to lead a normal matrimonial life. He also requested the respondent to leave the applicant in her parental home. The respondent left the applicant in her parental home. The applicant made a false complaint before the police on 02.11.2023. The matter was compromised between the parties at the Police Station. The applicant and her family members entered into the respondent's house and created a scene. The applicant and her family members abused them and violently behaved with the respondent’s family. The applicant is employed as an Assistant Professor, and she has filed a false complaint. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. Learned Trial Court held that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22.10.2023 and the parties were residing 4 2026:HHC:37388 separately since 28.10.2023. The compromise dated 03.11.2023 mentioned that the parties had mutually agreed to reside separately due to some misunderstanding between them. No reference was made to any domestic violence committed against the applicant. The plea taken by the respondent that he was treated as a stranger and was not permitted to consummate the marriage was believable. The applicant was financially independent and did not require any maintenance for her subsistence. Therefore, the application was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicant filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Chairman, H.P. STAT, exercising the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the parties had resided together for a short time. A compromise was effected between the parties in which it was stated that they were residing separately because of some misunderstanding between them. No reference was made to any cruelty inflicted upon the applicant. The applicant was employed as an Assistant Professor, and she was in a position to maintain herself. The applicant had failed to establish domestic violence, 5 2026:HHC:37388 which is necessary to grant relief. The Court cannot grant maintenance in the absence of Domestic Violence. The learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below, the applicant has filed the present revision asserting that a prima facie case was made out by the applicant for grant of interim maintenance. The applicant had disclosed the acts of domestic violence in her petition, which were ignored by the learned Courts below. The respondent is employed as an Assistant Professor and is drawing a salary of ₹1,00,000/- per month. The applicant is entitled to interim maintenance of ₹40,000/- per month. The learned Courts below erred in treating the compromise deed/statements dated 02.11.2023 and 03.11.2023 as the waivers of the applicant’s rights. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgment and order passed by learned Courts below be set aside. 6 2026:HHC:37388 7. I have heard Mr Vijay Panchta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the application. The applicant had pleaded necessary ingredients to show that the respondent had treated her with cruelty. She was continuously taunted and harassed in her matrimonial home, which made it difficult for her to reside in it. These allegations are to be prima facie accepted as correct, and learned Courts below appreciated the material as if they were deciding the final petition. The applicant is a legally wedded wife of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgment and order passed by learned Courts below be set aside. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It is undisputed that the applicant is employed as an Assistant Professor in Nalanda College. The respondent is also employed as an Assistant Professor. Therefore, the financial condition of the applicant and the respondent are almost equal, and it cannot be said that the applicant is unable to maintain herself. 7 2026:HHC:37388 10. It is undisputed that the parties had entered into a compromise. Both the learned Courts below referred to the compromise and found that the parties had agreed to separate from each other due to misunderstanding between them. There was no reference to the domestic violence in the compromise, and the plea taken by the applicant that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent was not corroborated by the contemporaneous document. Thus, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the applicant had prima facie failed to establish the domestic violence. It was laid down by this Court in Anil Kumar versus Shashi Bala and others, 2017 (2) Shim. L.C. 900 that where no specific allegations of beating were made, no report was made to any person, no independent person proved the beatings, the domestic violence is not established. No relief can be granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in such a situation. It was observed: - “[14] This Court, solely with a view to ascertaining the perversity, if any, in the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court, carefully perused pleadings as well as the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly compels this Court to agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel representing petitioner that learned appellate Court below has failed to appreciate evidence adduced on record by respective parties in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record. Bare perusal of the impugned 8 2026:HHC:37388 judgment passed by the learned appellate Court below itself suggests that even the appellate court was not convinced of the evidence led on record, which could make the complainant entitled to protection as claimed by way of an application under Section 12 of the Act. The learned appellate Court below, in para 16 of the impugned judgment, has categorically stated that from the record, it appears that serious allegations had been levelled against the complainant and no evidence had been brought for providing maintenance and as such she was not held entitled to protection, residence and custody order in her favour. It has also come in the judgment passed by the learned Court below that no violence, if any, on the part of the petitioner was proved. While granting compensation of Rs.1,000/- per month, in favour of the complainant, the learned appellate Court below took into consideration the status of the complainant, who admittedly had to live and maintain herself and she had no independent source of income. But, if the evidence led on record by the complainant before the learned trial Court, to prove the contents of her application under Section 12 of the Act, is seen and perused carefully, it nowhere suggests that maltreatment and violence as defined under the Act was ever meted out to the complainant. There is no specific allegation, if any, of beatings given by the husband or family members; rather, there is a bald statement of the complainant (AW-1) that she was maltreated, but no specific instance as such has been reported with regard to violence, if any, done on her by the respondents. The Father of the complainant (AW-3), namely Bihari Lal, has also not stated anywhere anything specific with regard to violence, if any, committed by the petitioner or his family members. Apart from the above, no independent witness, if any, from the locality was associated to prove allegations of maltreatment and violence in terms of provisions contained in the Act. As far as allegations with regard to throwing the complainant from the house are concerned, there is evidence led on record by the petitioner that the complainant left the house on her own, after being caught red-handed with one Jeet Ram, with whom she had illicit relations (as stood proved in the divorce petition). All 9 2026:HHC:37388 the witnesses of the respondent have stated that the complainant left the house to answer the call of nature and never turned up thereafter. [15] This Court, after having bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that the appellate court below, while granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, got swayed by emotions and completely ignored overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that complainant herself had left the house. Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, the learned appellate Court below ought not to have granted any amount on account of maintenance. Moreover, as has been noticed above, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated 3.3.2011, which has been further upheld by his Court, and as such, this Court sees no force, much less substantial, in the complaint of the complainant, which was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.” 11. This judgment was followed in Manohar Singh V/S Dropti Devi 2021 Law Suit (HP) 341, and it was held: - “[9] Evidence led on record by the respondent-wife nowhere proves any kind of domestic violence, and as such, courts below have erred in granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. Since there was no evidence of maltreatment of the respondent-wife, the courts below ought not to have granted any amount of maintenance/compensation. If the entire scheme of the DV Act is perused, it clearly suggests that the very object and purpose of the provisions contained under the Act is to give relief to the respondent-wife on account of Domestic violence, as defined under the Act, allegedly meted out to her by husband and other family members. Maintenance under Domestic Violence can be granted on three counts, i.e. physical abuse, mental abuse and economic abuse, which otherwise have been specifically defined in the definition of "Domestic Violence" as provided under section 3 of the Act.” 10 2026:HHC:37388 12. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance or any other relief on failure to prove the domestic violence and learned Courts below had rightly held that the applicant, having failed to prove the domestic violence, was not entitled to maintenance. There is no jurisdictional error committed by learned Courts below requiring any interference from this Court. 13. No other point was urged. 14. In view of the above, the present revision petition fails, and is dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 15. A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned courts below for information. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 3rd September, 2026 (Nikita)