2026:HHC:6091 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 926 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.2.2026 Date of decision: 6.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sushma ……...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Wadwa and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeewan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 12.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 73-N/10 of 2017, reversing judgment dated 8.3.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 190/3 of 2014, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein filed complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of 2026:HHC:6091 2 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “ Act”), stating therein that she was married to respondent No.1 on 11.5.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. She alleged that at the time of marriage, sufficient articles were given as streedhan. She alleged that from the day one of her marriage, behaviour of the respondent was not cordial and she was continuously harassed to bring motor cycle and Rs.50,000./- cash from her parents. Petitioner alleged that she was maltreated by respondent No.1 after being instigated by respondents No. 2 & 3 and she was also given beatings on number of occasions. She alleged that on 20.9.2023, she was given merciless beatings, as a result of which, her mother visited her and thereafter, she came to her parents’ house at Village Gorkhuwala. 3. Respondent No.1 refuted aforesaid claim of the petitioner by way of filing reply. He submitted that all the allegations have been leveled against him with a view to harass him and extract money. He stated in the reply that petitioner resided in his house w.e.f. 11.5.2013 to 20.6.2013 and thereafter, she went to her parental house. He submitted that during her brief stay, she used to pressurize him to take his share in the ancestral house and to sell the same so that they would start a business of stock marketing at Ponta Sahib. He further alleged that amount of Rs. 25000/- 2026:HHC:6091 3 was paid to the petitioner and Rs. 9,000/- was taken by her mother. He submitted that he used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month, but due to his having suffered mental disease, he is not earning anything since March 2014. 4. Petitioner with a view to prove her case examined as many as five witnesses, whereas respondent No.1 besides examining himself as RW1 also examined two other witnesses. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the petitioner held her entitled to maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the respondent, who was further restrained from indulging in any act of domestic violence. Court below also held the petitioner entitled to one room accommodation along with ancillary facility at the joint house of respondent No.1 at Karnal, Haryana. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court, respondents No.1 to 3 preferred appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur under Section 29 of the Act, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 12.10.2022. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant 2026:HHC:6091 4 proceedings, praying therein to set aside afore judgment dated 12.10.2022 and restore the judgment dated 8.3.2017 passed by the learned trial Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jeewan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence as well as relevant provisions of law applicable in the case at hand, in its right perspective, as a result of which, findings to the detriment of the petitioner have come to the fore. Mr. Jeevan, submitted that factum with regard to subsequent divorce inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1, weighed heavily with learned appellate court, while allowing the appeal filed at the behest of respondent No.1. He submitted that though petitioner herein has been granted decree of divorce by the competent court of law, but such fact, if any, shall not preclude her from claiming maintenance under Section 12 of the Act. While making this Court peruse definition of “aggrieved person” as given in Section 2 (a), Mr. Jeevan, argued that “aggrieved person” would mean any woman, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and in case, she is subjected to any kind of domestic violence, she is entitled to claim maintenance. While 2026:HHC:6091 5 referring to definition of “domestic violence” as given in Section 3 of the Act, he submitted that since respondents repeatedly caused physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse and such fact was successfully proved on record by the petitioner, there was no occasion, if any, for the appellate court to reverse the well reasoned judgment recorded by the learned trial Court. Lastly, Mr. Jeevan, fairly admitted that since petitioner on account of her having left matrimonial house coupled with the fact that she has been divorced, she is not entitled to residence in terms of order passed by the learned trial Court, but she cannot be denied maintenance till the time she re-marries. 9. To the contrary, Mr. Atul Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court, vehemently argued that maintenance, if any, can be granted to the petitioner for her having suffered domestic violence, if any, at the hands of the respondents. While referring to evidence led on record by the petitioner, Mr. Atul Verma, submitted that none of the witnesses including petitioner stated anything specific with regard to domestic violence, if any, committed by respondent No.1. He submitted that mere statement that petitioner was subjected to domestic violence is not sufficient, rather domestic violence meted to the petitioner is required to be 2026:HHC:6091 6 elaborately proved and explained to the court concerned. He further submitted that since as of today, domestic relationship inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 has severed and they are no more husband and wife, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned appellate court while passing impugned order. 10. Having carefully perused the material available on record vis-à- vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner. Careful perusal of judgment passed by the learned first appellate court compels this court to draw a conclusion that it has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. 11. Though this Court may agree with Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that factum, if any, of divorce, inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 may not be of much relevance as far as maintenance, if any, under Section 12 of the Act on account of domestic violence, if any, committed by respondent No.1 is concerned. 12. Definition of “aggrieved person” as given in Section 2 (a), clearly reveals that any woman, who is or has been in domestic relationship if subjected to any act of domestic violence can be said to be “aggrieved 2026:HHC:6091 7 person”. Section 12 of the Act, specifically talks about “aggrieved person”. Since factum with regard to petitioner’s marriage with respondent No.1 is not in dispute, rather it is admitted fact that marriage inter-se them was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs, petitioner herein can be said to be competent to maintain complaint under Section 12 of the Act, however careful perusal of Section 12 clearly reveals that before passing any order on such application, Magistrate is required to take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. The relief sought for under sub- section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent, meaning thereby, to seek maintenance, if any, under Section 12, aggrieved party is required to prove domestic violence, if any, committed upon her. 13. In the instant case, complainant with a view to prove domestic violence stepped into witness box as PW2 and deposed that respondent used to demand AC, motor cycle, dining table and Rs.50,000/- in cash, however aforesaid claim of the petitioner never came to be corroborated by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 2026:HHC:6091 8 14. PW4 i.e. mother of the petitioner deposed that respondent started maltreating her daughter on account of dowry as they used to ask for money and motor cycle. She also stated that her daughter was given beatings. 15. PW5 deposed that after about 3-4 months of marriage, a meeting had taken place, wherein respondents had come and he was also present. He submitted that respondent had offered to pay Rs. 60,000 to the petitioner and return the articles given by petitioner to the respondent. 16. If the statement of aforesaid witness, which is material in the case being independent witness, is perused, he nowhere stated anything specific with regard to maltreatment. He nowhere supported the allegation leveled by the petitioner as well as her mother that petitioner was being maltreated by the respondent. Moreover, it is not in dispute that petitioner resided in the house of the respondent from 11.5.2013 to 20.6.2013 i.e. one and half months, whereafter she came to her parents house. During aforesaid period, no complaint was ever lodged to the police or other authorities. Statement of PW5 clearly reveals that once petitioner had come back to her parents house, she was not interested to join back the company of respondent No.1 and as such, with a view to settle the matter, 2026:HHC:6091 9 respondent allegedly agreed to pay Rs. 60,000/- and return the articles. As per the statement of the petitioner, she was given merciless beatings on 20.9.2013 and on 1.10.2013, her mother visited her and saw her in pitiable condition, but interestingly, there is no record, if any, of complaint lodged to the police authority qua the beatings, if any, given to the petitioner by the respondent. Moreover, there is no specific denial to the claim of the respondents that petitioner remained in the company of the respondents w.e.f. 11.5.2013, to 20.6.2013 and as such, allegation of beatings, if any, given on 20.9.2013, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent to cause harm or injuries or endangering the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person amounts to domestic violence, but mere allegations of mental, physical and sexual violence are not sufficient to prove the complaint, rather such allegations are required to be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which in the case at hand, have been not proved by the petitioner. 17. Though learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly referred to the statements made by the petitioner and her mother, but same are nothing but reiteration of the averments contained in the complaint. Independent witness PW5 nowhere deposed factum, if any, of 2026:HHC:6091 10 maltreatment, rather he simply stated that after 3-4 months of marriage, a meeting had taken place inter-se respondents and petitioner, wherein respondent had offered to pay Rs. 60000/- and return the articles to the petitioner. 18. Since in the case at hand, petitioner has ceased to be in domestic relationship with the respondent on account of her having taken divorce and at the time of passing order passed by the learned trial Court, she was not residing at her matrimonial house coupled with the fact that no cogent and convincing evidence has been led on record qua the domestic violence, if any, meted to the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the present petition. 19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and same is upheld, as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. March 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge