Ashwani Kumar vs Dasi alias Uma Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Rev (FC) No.19 of 2025
th
Decided on 15 October 2026
Ashwani Kumar
…Petitioner
Vs.
Dasi alias Uma Devi
…Respondent
Coram
High Court of H.P.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta,
Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Sidhant Jamwal, Advocate.


Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged
order dated 25.03.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mandi, H.P., in Case No.13 of 2023, titled
Dasi @ Uma Devi Versus Ashwani Kumar, in terms whereof,
the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of monthly
maintenance, was allowed by the learned Court below by
ordering the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, as
from the date of the filing of the petition.

::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

2
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued
High Court of H.P.
that the impugned order is perverse on three counts.
He submitted that in light of the fact that there was no dispute
that the respondent was legally married before she entered into
a relationship with the present petitioner and that there was no
formal divorce between her and the first husband, the grant of
maintenance in favour of the respondent by the learned Court
below was totally unsustainable. He further submitted that,
despite the fact that the petitioner time and again had conveyed
to her and still was willing to reside with her, the respondent
was not willing to reside with him for the reason that she was
again living in a live-in relationship with one Ashok Kumar,
which was duly proved on record, which fact was ignored by
the learned Court below. Learned Senior Counsel also argued
that in light of the fact that it was not proved before the learned
Court below that the respondent was forced to leave the house
of the present petitioner on account of his act, be it mental or
physical abuse, the voluntarily desertion of the respondent
could not be given premium by granting her maintenance and
this aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

3
Court below. On these counts, learned Senior Counsel for the
High Court of H.P.
petitioner prays that the impugned order be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that the parties had a
relationship for more than 21 years, which is not in dispute.
Due to this, the petitioner has no locus to submit before this
Court that he is not bound to maintain the respondent on the
alleged ground that there was no formal divorce between the
respondent and her first husband. He further submitted that
record, demonstrated that the respondent was duly mentioned
as the wife of the petitioner in the Pariwar Register i.e., Ext.
PW-1/B and, therefore, this contention of the petitioner was
worth rejection. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
respondent was forcibly thrown out of the house by the
petitioner after physically abusing her. There was no occasion
for the respondent, otherwise, to have left the house of the
petitioner after residing with him for more than 21 years.
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the bald allegation
that the respondent was having a live-in relationship with Ashok
Kumar was not substantiated before the learned Court below,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

4
as was observed by the said Court also. He argued that, as the
High Court of H.P.
respondent was a destitute lady, she had no option, but to work
in the house of Ashok Kumar. Simply because she was working
as a maid in the house of Ashok Kumar, this did not mean that
she was having a live-in relationship with him. He submitted
that the allegations levelled against the present respondent
itself are demonstrative of the attitude of the present petitioner
towards her. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
contention of the petitioner that he is willing to take back the
respondent is not worth any credence, as this stand is being
taken by him only to evade the order of maintenance.
Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the
present petition, the same be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties
and having carefully gone through the impugned order, we are
of the considered view that the impugned order calls for no
interference.
5. The order has been assailed before us on three
grounds by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which
have been mentioned hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

5
6. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for
High Court of H.P.
the petitioner is that the learned Court below erred in not
appreciating that there was no formal divorce between the
respondent and her first husband. However, this issue has been
taken care of by the learned Court below Para 18 onwards of the
order, findings have been returned in this regard in favour of the
wife by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
which stand referred therein.
7. Besides this, the learned Court below has also taken
note of the evidence, which was produced on record, including
Ext. PW-1/B, which is the copy of Pariwar Register of the family
of the present petitioner, i.e., the husband, in which, the
respondent is mentioned as the wife of Ashwani Kumar. On these
bases, it was held by the learned Court below that the respondent
herein was kept as a wife by the respondent and, therefore, was
entitled for maintenance from him.
8. Not only this, a perusal of Para 32 of the order
passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that in his
cross-examination, the factum of the respondent being the wife of
the present petitioner was never disputed by him nor did he

dispute the entry in the Pariwar Register.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

6
9. In light of the fact that it could not be proved before
High Court of H.P.
us that the findings returned in this regard by the learned Court
below were perverse and not borne out from the record, we do
not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned order suffers from infirmity on the ground that the
first marriage of the respondent did not end by a formal divorce.
10. The other issues raised by the learned Senior
Counsel are that the impugned order is bad, as the learned
Court below erred in not appreciating that the wife had willfully
left the house and that she was having a live-in relationship
with Ashok Kumar.
11. According to us, as it was the stand of the present
petitioner before the learned Court below that the wife had
voluntarily left the house and that she was having a live-in
relationship with Ashok Kumar, the onus was upon the
petitioner to prove these facts.
12. It is evident from the order passed by the learned
Court below that in the month of December 2022, the wife was
physically assaulted by the present petitioner, who threatened
to do away with her life and forced the wife to leave the house.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

7
Besides this, the husband also refused to provide financial
High Court of H.P.
support to her and thereafter, she started residing in her
parental house since January 2023.
13. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner that the wife voluntarily left the house was not
substantiated by the husband by leading any cogent evidence
in this regard before the learned Court below.
14. Besides this, the allegation which in fact is a serious
allegation that the present respondent was in a live-in
relationship with Ashok Kumar was also not proved by him by
leading any cogent evidence. His bald assertion in this regard
cannot be treated as a proof of the allegation.
15. We find from the impugned order that the
agreement Ext. RW-1/A was produced on record by the
husband himself, in terms whereof, the wife was only kept as a
servant by Ashok Kumar and not as his partner, as was being
claimed by the husband. It could not be demonstrated before
us that the findings returned by the learned Court below on the
basis of Ext. RW-1/A were perverse and contrary to the
contents of Ext. RW-1/A.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

8
16. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior
High Court of H.P.
Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below erred in
not appreciating that the respondent left the house voluntarily
or that she was having a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar
stood rejected.
17. As far as the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioner was still willing to bring the
respondent back is concerned, we concur with the submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that
this appears to be more of a lip service just to avoid the
maintenance order that has been passed against the petitioner
by the learned Court below.
18. We find that as the respondent had resided with the
petitioner for 21 years in a relationship, until and unless it was
proved before the learned Court below by the petitioner that the
respondent willfully deserted him, the stand of the respondent
that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner and forced
to leave his house had be to accepted.


::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS

9
19. Accordingly, in light of the above discussions,
High Court of H.P.
as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order,
the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge



(Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge
October 15, 2026
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 11:42:13 :::CIS