IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.354 of 2016 Reserved on: 17.03.2026 Date of Decision: 04.04.2026 Tulsi Ram ....Petitioner Versus Meena Kumari ....Respondent Coram r Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the petitioner : Ms B.S. Chauhan, Sr.

Advocate, with Mr Sahil Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent/ : Mr Atul Verma, Advocate, for State the respondent Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, Camp at Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

First Class, Jogindernagar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

(learned Trial Court) was upheld. (Parties shall hereinaft.er be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience. H

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (D.V.Act). It was asserted that the applicant is the legally weudded wife of the respondent. The marriage between theo applicant and respondent was solemnised about 30 years before filing the petition, according to Hindu rites and customs. The respondents started humiliating and harassing the applicant soon after the marriage. The respondent developed extramarital relations and ousted the iapplicant from her matrimonial home. He failed to provide any maintenance to the applicant. The applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and another petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., and the Court granted maintenance to the applicant @ ₹2000/- per month. The applicant is residing in her parental home, which is not sufficient for her residence and she had to rent an accommodation. The applicant is unemployed, and the respondent had retired as Naib Subedar from the Indian A.rmy.

He was getting more than ₹25,000/- per month as a pension. He has land in his name, and he is getting H₹5000/- per month from agricultural activities. He has installed a saw mill and a thresher machine, and is earning more than ₹4000/- per month. He is also running a shop and is earning more than ₹4000/-. The total incomte of the respondent is more than ₹38,000/- per month; hence, it was prayed that monetary relief, a residence order and a restraint order be passed in the applicant’s favour.

3. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, the applicant having never resided in a shared household, and ithe application being barred by limitation. The relationship between the parties was admitted. The rest of the contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the applicant never resided in a shared household with the respondent after 19.05.1999. She left her matrimonial home on 19 May 1999 with a promise to return after two days, but she failed to honour her promise. The respondent requested the applicant to return to her matrimonial home, but in vain.

He even went to the parental home of the applicant to .bring her with him, but she refused to join his company. The respondent also filed a petition under SecHtion 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The applicant is getting the maintenance of ₹2000/- per month. She is working as a tailor and is earning ₹10,000/- per month. She filed a false petition to hatrass the respondent. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. Ao rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed.

5. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the applicant examined herself (AW-1). The respondent examined himself (RW-1).

H 6. Learned tri