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

12.10.20 22, 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 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “ Act”), sta.ting 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 mot or cycle and Rs.50,000./- cash from her parents. Petitioner alleged rthat she was maltreated by respondent No.1 after being instigated by respondents No. 2 & 3 and she was also given beatings on numboer of occasions. She alleged that on 20.9.2023, she was given mercCiless 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/-

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 allowoance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the respondent, who was furtherC restrained from indulging in any act of domestic violence. Court below also held the petitioner entitled to one room accommodation along withh ancillary facility at the joint house of respondent No.1 at Karnal, gHaryana.

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 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