The judgment establishes the importance of presenting credible evidence to prove claims of domestic violence and entitlement to maintenance under the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment dated 30.11.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2009, affirming the judgment dated 29.1.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali in Criminal Case No. 310-I/08, whereby learned Trial Court below while allowing the application preferred on behalf of petitioner Smt. Prem Lata filed under Section 12 of the Protection of women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act'), awarded maintenance of Rs. 1200/- per month and Rs. 700/- per month as rent of the residence. For the sake of convenience, the parties as referred to in the judgment of the trial Court has been referred as such.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the pleadings are that petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Perusal of the contents contained in application under Section 12 of the Act suggests that marriage was solemnized on 26.11.2007 and thereafter both the parties lived under one roof as husband and wife at village Haripur, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu and out of their wedlock a daughter, namely, Kaushlaya was born on 17.11.2008. As per petitioner, during her pregnancy, the respondent used to threaten her to kill her unborn child and ousted her from the house after gave beatings to her. Due to aforesaid ill behavior of her husband, she was compelled to take shelter in her parents’ house. In the aforesaid background she moved an application under Section 12 of the Act, praying therein for monthly maintenance as well as rent for separate residence. Respondent while filing reply to the petition stated that petitioner is not his legally wedded wife and there is no question of living together. He further stated that petitioner is married to one Joginder, r/o village Simsa, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu and the petitioner has filed the application in order to harass him.

3. Petitioner by way of rejoinder while denying allegation contained in reply asserted that she had moved an application before Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Haripur and Gram Panchayat taking cognizance of the averments made in the application summoned both the parties with a view to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if any, between the parties, however, Petitioner’s husband remained adamant not to take her to house. Since, no amicable settlement could take place between the parties, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat referred the application to Police Post, Prini where both the parties were summoned and a compromise was effected between the parties on 14.9.2008. In the aforesaid background, petitioner filed an application, as referred to here-in-above, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 29.01.2009, whereby, respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1200/- as maintenance and Rs.700/- per month as rent of the residence.

4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, respondent filed an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2009, however, learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, on the basis of record available, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu. Hence, present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court laying challenge to the impugned judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P.

5. Shri Naveen Bhardwaj, counsel representing the petitioner herein, vehemently argued that order passed by both the Courts below granting maintenance and rent to the respondent herein is not sustainable as the same is not based on correct appreciation of