( 2026:HHC:39414 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.R No. 236 of 2026 Reserved on 10th September, 2026 Date of decision:-16th September, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Harvinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh & others. …..Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for remaining respondents. _____________________________________________________ Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge The present revision has been preferred impugning the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, dated 28.02.2026, whereby the appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) stands dismissed. 2. The petitioner had preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner had, inter alia, sought an -2- ( 2026:HHC:39414 ) injunction restraining the respondent from transferring his savings and alienating his assets and further turning the petitioner out of the matrimonial house. The petitioner had also sought monthly maintenance of Rs.27,000/- and compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The said application came to be dismissed and appeal having been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba also came to be dismissed and hence the present revision. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 5. What conspicuously emerges on record is that the petitioner and her children, who are both employed are living in a separate house owned by none else but the respondent at Mohalla Lower Julakhari, Chamba. 6. Both the learned Courts below have gone on to hold that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the house was not worth living. Admittedly, both the children of the petitioner are major and were also gainfully employed and -3- ( 2026:HHC:39414 ) earning well. 7. It further transpired that the petitioner was also being paid monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- by the respondent, which has come to be awarded as per the proseedings under Section 125 CrPC, oblivious of the fact that the pension of the respondent is only Rs.2,291/-, as is clear from Exhibit CW-1/K on record. As per the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts below there were hardly any savings in the account of the respondent. 8. The petitioner had also tried to, unsuccessfully level allegations of infidelity, however, no evidence had been led by the petitioner to prove the said factum. So much so she did not even, herself utter a word in this regard while appearing as her own witness. 9. Having reconsidered the entire prospectus, as discussed above it cannot be said that the learned Court below has committed any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order. 10. Consequently, the petition sans merit and as a -4- ( 2026:HHC:39414 ) sequel, is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 16.09.2026 (Ritu)