Uttarakhand High Court
7 June vs Pooja Maratha And Others on 17 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5039
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2025
17 June, 2025
Laxman Singh Maratha .........Revisionist
Versus
Pooja Maratha and Others --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D S Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Present criminal revision is filed against the
impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2025
passed by learned Sessions Judge, District
Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2024 ‘Smt.
Pooja Maratha and Others Vs. Laxman Singh
Maratha’, whereby learned Sessions Judge, District
Uttarkashi has allowed the application of
respondent/wife under Section 18, 19 and 22 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (in short ‘the D.V. Act‘) and to refrain the
revisionist from harassing the respondent
no.1/opposite party physically, mentally or
emotionally as well as the impugned order dated
30.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uttarkashi in Misc. Criminal Case No. 196 of 2023,
whereby the application moved by the respondents
was partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the
1
2025:UHC:5039
present revision are that the marriage between the
revisionist/husband and respondent no.1/wife was
solemnized on 10.11.2008 as per Hindu rites; that,
out of the said wedlock two daughters were born;
that, the respondent/wife alleged that the revisionist
and his family members (mother and brother)
subjected her to physical and mental harassment;
that, respondent no.1/wife also accused the husband
of being involved in an extra-marital affair; that, in
August 2023, the husband allegedly threatened the
wife and forcibly evicted her from the matrimonial
home, warning her not to return or face dire
consequences. Consequently, she started residing in
a rented accommodation; that, the respondent
no.1/wife filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 196 of 2023
under Sections 18, 19, and 22 of the Domestic
Violence Act; that, the husband filed a written
statement after notice was served; that, learned trial
court partly allowed the application filed by
respondent no.1/wife; that, aggrieved by the trial
court’s order, the respondent no.1/wife filed Criminal
Appeal No. 77 of 2019 in the Sessions Court,
Uttarkashi; that, learned Sessions Judge modified the
trial court’s order and directed the husband not to
commit any form of cruelty i.e. physical, mental, or
emotional against the respondent no.1/wife and also
ordered the revisionist/husband to make available
the ancestral house to the respondent no.1/wife
within 30 days without any obstruction and if the
house at Josiyada cannot be provided, the
revisionist/husband must pay ₹10,000 per month to
2
2025:UHC:5039
the wife in lieu of accommodation. The
revisionist/husband has challenged the impugned
judgments and orders by filing the present revision.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and perused the material available on the
record.
4. Learned trial court by the impugned
judgment and order passed under Section 18 of the
D.V. Act has directed the revisionist not to create any
sort of physical mental or emotional curtly to the
respondent/wife. In appeal preferred by the
respondent/wife, the Appellate Court allowed the
same and further directed the revisionist to make
available a residential house in Josiyada for the stay
of respondent/her wife and her children or `10,000/-
per month in case the house is not available.
5. It has come to light that the parties to the
marriage owned a two-storeyed residential house in
Josiyada with two rooms on each floor. It is an
admitted fact that the revisionist/husband and
respondent no.1/wife were married on 10-11
February 2008. However, on 24 August 2004, the
respondent/wife along with her two children was
forcibly ousted from the shared household and
compelled to live in a rented premises. By ousting the
wife and children from the shared household, the
revisionist/husband not only deprived them of
shelter but also subjected them to humiliation and
emotional trauma. Such conduct falls squarely within
the ambit of cruelty and domestic violence under the
Act.
3
2025:UHC:5039
6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances,
the trial court passed the order under Section 18 of
the D.V. Act. In appeal also, the order was affirmed
with the further modification of granting permission
to the respondent/wife to stay in the ancestral house
of the revisionist and/or till the accommodation is
made available to respondents, the revisionist is
directed to pay `10,000/- per month towards rent.
7. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
view that the judgments and orders passed by the
courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality. There is no scope for interference.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision preferred
by the revisionist under Section 438/442 of the
B.N.S. is found to be devoid of merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed at the threshold.”
8. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.06.2025
Mamta
4