The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and refrain from committing domestic violence, as mandated by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012.

2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent filed an application under sections 12 read with sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba bearing Case No. 347-1/10. According to the averments contained in the application, she was legally wedded wife of petitioner Hitesh Tandon. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the area. Petitioner kept her nicely for about few days after the marriage. He started maltreating the respondent. He also used to give beatings to her. She tolerated inhuman beahaviour of the petitioner in the hope that he would mend his ways with the passage of time. He also levelled allegations of unchastity against her. He used to make sarcastic remarks against her. She was deprived of basic necessities. She was turned out from matrimonial house after administering beatings on 4.8.2010. Petitioner was also proclaiming that he has solemnized second marriage at Dharamshala. Petitioner is hail and hearty. Monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 30,000/-. She has no source of income. She has no house to live.

3. Petitioner filed reply to the application. He has denied the allegations made in the application. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application on 23.6.2012. Petitioner was prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondent. He was ordered to provide at least one room, kitchen and bathroom in the shared house. He and his relatives were restrained from entering in the shared house in which she was residing. He was also restrained from alienating or disposing of room allotted in the shared house to the respondent. She was awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing the application, i.e. 20.10.2010. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012 against the order dated 23.6.2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba dismissed the appeal on 24.5.2013. Hence, the present petition.

4. Mr. Ramesh Sharma has vehemently argued that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. According to him, respondent herself has started quarreling with the petitioner and has left the matrimonial house. She has taken Rs. four lakhs from the petitioner and has spent the same during election. Petitioner has never given beatings to the respondent. Income of his client was Rs. 6,500/- per month. His services were terminated on 16.12.2012. He had opened a clinic in the name of Himalayan Health Care Clinic of Electro Homoeopathy at village Sankha, P.O. Kilod, Tehsil and District Chamba. He was unable to earn sufficient money. He was living in rented house and was spending Rs. 1,000/- per month.

5. Mr. Parveen Chauhan has supported the order and judgment rendered by both the courts below.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

7. Respondent has appeared as AW-1. According to her, the marriage was solemnized on 6.8.2009. She was kept properly when her mother-in-law was alive. Petitioner used to give her beatings. Her husband was working in Atal Savasthay Seva and was earning between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. He has also opened a clinic at place Panela. Bank balance of the petitioner was Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs. She required a room, kitchen and bath room and Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month as maintenance.

8. Respondent’s father Pardeep Kumar has appeared as AW-2. According to him, marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of August, 2009. Respondent was treated properly till her mother-in-law was alive. Thereafter, his son-in-law and his relatives started