Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Shimla (H.P.) whereby appeal filed under Section 29 of Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 is dismissed and protection order passed by learned Trial Court is affirmed. Brief facts of the case: 2. Smt. Ruchi Attri wife of Sh. Sanjeev Attri filed complaint under Section 12 of Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 alleged therein that Smt. Ruchi Attri is legally wedded wife of Sh. Sanjeev Attri and Sh. Karam Chand is father-in-law of Smt. Ruchi Attri and Smt. Satya Devi is mother-in-law of Smt. Ruchi Attri and Sh. Rajneesh is brother-in-law of Smt. Ruchi Attri and Smt. Gunjan is sister-in-law of Smt. Ruchi Attri. It is alleged that marriage of Smt. Ruchi Attri was solemnized with Sh. Sanjeev Attri on 30.11.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that for some time married life of Smt. Ruchi Attri remained without trouble but thereafter Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members taunted Smt. Ruchi Attri for bringing insufficient dowry. It is alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri was mentally tortured in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that thereafter Smt. Ruchi Attri came to her parental house at Shimla and resided till 12.01.2011. It is alleged that husband of non-petitioner namely Sh. Sanjeev Attri came to Shimla to take her back from Shimla. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri inquired from Smt. Ruchi Attri regarding grant of money from parents of Smt. Ruchi Attri for purchase of car. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri informed her husband that she could not talk with her parents regarding grant of money for purchase of car. Thereafter Sh. Sanjeev Attri became annoyed and also rebuked Smt. Ruchi Attri. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri was mentally tortured in her matrimonial house for not bringing sufficient dowry. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members forced Smt. Ruchi Attri to pay installments of car and also forced to hand over all the savings which she has collected before marriage. It is further alleged that Sh. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members forced Smt. Ruchi Attri to pay installments of car and also forced to hand over all the savings which she has collected before marriage. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members used to take entire amount of salary and Smt. Ruchi Attri was forced to take tuition work. It is further alleged that in matrimonial house Smt. Ruchi Attri was slapped and was also called by name ‘Randi’ (Prostitute). It is further alleged that in the month of August 2011 Smt. Ruchi Attri became pregnant and on coming to know about pregnancy Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members compelled Smt. Ruchi Attri to commit abortion on the pretext that they could not bear day to day expenses of child. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members also demanded lump sum money for minor children. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri was also beaten in her matrimonial house and was badly injured and her mobile was also broken. It is further alleged that in the month of October/ November 2011 Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members started construction of new house and forced Smt. Ruchi Attri to bring money from her parental house. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri was treated as domestic servant in her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that Sh. Rajneesh brother-in-law also misbehaved with Smt Ruchi Attri. It is further alleged that on 19.04.2012 Smt. Ruchi Attri was blessed with a daughter and thereafter Smt. Ruchi Attri was harassed in her matrimonial house on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri was also beaten in her matrimonial house several times. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri is a Government servant and is drawing salary amounting to Rs.27,500/- (Twenty seven thousand five hundred) per month. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri did not provide any maintenance to Smt. Ruchi Attri and her minor children. Non-petitioner Smt. Ruchi Attri sought following protection relief(s): (1) Prohibiting Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members from committing any act of domestic violence to her and her minor children. (2) Prohibiting Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members from abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. Non-petitioner Smt. Ruchi Attri sought following protection relief(s): (1) Prohibiting Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members from committing any act of domestic violence to her and her minor children. (2) Prohibiting Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members from abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. (3) Smt. Ruchi Attri also sought alternative accommodation for her and her minor children as enjoyed by them in the shared household or to pay rent for the same. (4) Smt. Ruchi Attri also sought relief of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month for maintaining herself and her minor children. (5) Smt. Ruchi Attri also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lac (Five lac) for her mental torture and domestic violence. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members alleged therein that Smt. Ruchi Attri has concealed material facts from the Court and did not come to the Court with clean hands. It is alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri left her matrimonial house without any reasonable cause. It is further alleged that present petition is filed by Smt. Ruchi Attri in order to fulfill her illegal motive. It is further alleged that Smt. Ruchi Attri after the marriage insisted Sh. Sanjeev Attri to live separately from his father and mother. When Sh. Sanjeev Attri shown his inability then Smt. Ruchi Attri started misbehaving with Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members did not torture Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house at any point of time. It is further alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members did not demand any dowry from Smt. Ruchi Attri at any point of time. It is further alleged that salary of Sh. Sanjeev Attri is Rs.25,374/- (Twenty five thousand three hundred seventy four) per month. Prayer for dismissal of complaint filed under Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 sought. 4. Learned Trial Court framed following points for determination: (1) Whether complainant is entitled for protection orders under Section 18 of the act as alleged? (2) Whether complainant is entitled for residence orders under Section 19 of the act as alleged? (3) Whether complainant is entitled for monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the act as alleged? 4. Learned Trial Court framed following points for determination: (1) Whether complainant is entitled for protection orders under Section 18 of the act as alleged? (2) Whether complainant is entitled for residence orders under Section 19 of the act as alleged? (3) Whether complainant is entitled for monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the act as alleged? (4) Whether complainant is entitled for compensation orders under Section 22 of the act as alleged? (5) Final Order. Learned Trial Court decided points No.1 to 4 in affirmative. Learned Trial Court allowed the complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005. Learned Trial Court passed protection orders under Section 18 of the act and restrained co-respondents No.1 to 4 from advancing any type of threats in any manner and also directed that respondents would not enter the place of complainant employment and would not commit any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Learned Trial Court further passed protection orders under Section 19 of the act and directed Sh. Sanjeev Attri to either provide accommodation in the aforesaid shared house hold at his place or to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) per month as rent charges in lieu of residence to the complainant from the date of passing order i.e. w.e.f. 30.08.2014. Learned Trial Court also passed protection orders under Section 20 of the act and directed Sh. Sanjeev Attri to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month as maintenance allowance to complainant and Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month as maintenance allowance to her minor daughter who is living with complainant and granted total sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month from the date of passing order i.e. w.e.f. 30.08.2014. Learned Trial Court also passed protection orders under Section 22 of the act and directed correspondents No.1 to 4 to pay compensation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of mental torture and emotional distress caused to complainant. Learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint against co-respondent No.5. Learned Trial Court further directed that copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost and learned Trial Court further directed to send copy of order to SHO Police Station West Shimla and Protection Officer for necessary action. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned Trial Court Sh. Learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint against co-respondent No.5. Learned Trial Court further directed that copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost and learned Trial Court further directed to send copy of order to SHO Police Station West Shimla and Protection Officer for necessary action. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned Trial Court Sh. Sanjeev Attri and others filed appeal under Section 29 of Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Shimla (H.P.) on 01.05.2015. Feeling aggrieved against the order Sh. Sanjeev Attri and others filed present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners/non-complainants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner/complainant and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. PW-1 Smt. Ruchi Attri has stated that when daughter was born to her then non-complainants became depressed. She has stated that when she reached in her matrimonial house she was beaten. She has stated that she was taunted in her matrimonial house for bringing insufficient dowry. She has stated that non-complainants used abusive and insulting language in her matrimonial house and also demanded dowry. She has stated that non-complainants demanded Rs.2 lacs (Two lac) from her. She has stated that financial condition of her parents was not proper and her parents could not fulfill the dowry demand of non-complainants. She has stated that she narrated the incident of demand of Rs.2 lacs (Two lac) to her parents. She has stated that non-complainants also used abusive language to her parents. She has stated that her complaint be allowed and relief sought in complaint be also granted to her. She has stated that she does not know that loan was sanctioned from department for purchase of vehicle. She has denied suggestion that she could not adjust in the family atmosphere of her matrimonial house. She has denied suggestion that she forced her husband to reside separately. She has stated that she does not know that loan was sanctioned from department for purchase of vehicle. She has denied suggestion that she could not adjust in the family atmosphere of her matrimonial house. She has denied suggestion that she forced her husband to reside separately. She has denied suggestion that she was not mentally and physically tortured in her matrimonial house. She has denied suggestion that she is earning Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month by way of tuition work. She has denied suggestion that she is residing in her parental house voluntarily. 8. PW-2 Sh. Sudesh Kumar has stated that Smt. Ruchi Attri is his daughter and she was married in the month of November 2010 with Sh. Sanjeev Attri at Palampur. He has stated that his daughter told him that non-complainants demanded dowry. He has stated that his daughter also told him that non-complainants told her that she should come to matrimonial house alongwith money only. He has stated that matter was also reported before Gram Panchayat. He has denied suggestion that Smt. Ruchi Attri was not mentally and physically tortured in her matrimonial house. He has denied suggestion that Smt. Ruchi Attri forced Sh. Sanjeev Attri to reside separately from his parents. He has denied suggestion that non-complainants did not demand any money. He has denied suggestion that he did not give any dowry in the marriage ceremony of Smt. Ruchi Attri. He has denied suggestion that Smt. Ruchi Attri is residing in her parental house without any reasonable cause. 9. RW-1 Sh. Sanjeev Attri has stated that he was married with Smt. Ruchi Attri on 30.11.2010. He has stated that behaviour of Smt. Ruchi Attri was not cordial in her matrimonial house. He has stated that he also opened RD in the name of Smt. Ruchi Attri to the tune of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) per month. He has stated that Smt. Ruchi Attri was not beaten in her matrimonial house. He has stated that no physical or mental torture was given to Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house. He has denied suggestion that dowry was demanded from Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house. 10. RW-2 Smt. Gunjan has stated that Smt. Ruchi Attri is her sister-in-law. She has stated that marriage of Smt. Ruchi Attri and Sh. Sanjeev Attri was arranged by her. He has denied suggestion that dowry was demanded from Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house. 10. RW-2 Smt. Gunjan has stated that Smt. Ruchi Attri is her sister-in-law. She has stated that marriage of Smt. Ruchi Attri and Sh. Sanjeev Attri was arranged by her. She has stated that she is residing separately since July 2009. She has stated that copy of ration card is Ext.RW2/A which is correct as per original. She has stated that her husband took loan from Kangra Cooperative Bank for purchase of vehicle. She has stated that documents are Ext.RW2/C. She has stated that Smt. Ruchi Attri was treated in her matrimonial house properly and no domestic violence was committed upon her in her matrimonial house in her presence. She has stated that no dowry was demanded from Smt. Ruchi Attri by non-complainants. She has stated that no physical or mental torture was given to Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house. She has stated that non-complainants did not illtreat Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house. She has denied suggestion that dowry was demanded from Smt. Ruchi Attri in her matrimonial house by non-complainants. She has denied suggestion that Smt. Ruchi Attri was also beaten in her matrimonial house by non-complainants. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that there are omissions, contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of complainant and her witness and on this ground petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of PW-1 Ruchi Attri & PW-2 Sudesh Kumar father of complainant. There is no material contradiction between the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 which goes to root of case. Testimonies of complainant PW-1 Ruchi Attri and PW-2 Sudesh Kumar father of complainant are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2. 12. It is well settled law that as per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. It is well settled law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if Court comes to the conclusion that statement is true and correct. 12. It is well settled law that as per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. It is well settled law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if Court comes to the conclusion that statement is true and correct. It is well settled law that Courts are concerned with the merit of the statement of a particular witness and Courts are not concerned with the number of witnesses examined. See 1997(2) Crimes 175 title Raja vs. State. It is well settled law that it is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence upon the statement. See JT 2008(8) SC 650 title State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal & Others. It is well settled law that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. It is well settled law that Court may classify oral testimony into three categories. (i) Wholly reliable. (ii) Wholly unreliable. (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. See AIR 2003 SC 854 title Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand. In the present case PW-1 Smt. Ruchi Attri has specifically stated in positive manner that she was mentally and physically tortured in her matrimonial house. Even the matter was reported to Gram Panchayat but no settlement could be executed inter se parties in the Gram Panchayat. It is proved fact that Smt. Ruchi Attri is residing in her parental house for more than one year alongwith her minor daughter. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Sudesh Kumar because Sh. Sudesh Kumar is interested witness and is father of complainant Smt. Ruchi Attri is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that relatives are the best witnesses in family dispute. It is well settled law that when cruelty is committed upon woman in her matrimonial house within four walls of the house then it is not possible for aggrieved woman to obtain independent witness from the locality. 14. It is well settled law that relatives are the best witnesses in family dispute. It is well settled law that when cruelty is committed upon woman in her matrimonial house within four walls of the house then it is not possible for aggrieved woman to obtain independent witness from the locality. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court have not appreciated the testimonies of RW-1 and RW-2 correctly is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved fact that Smt. Ruchi Attri is residing separately from RW-1 Sh. Sanjeev Attri in her parental house since long period alongwith her minor daughter. It is proved fact that RW-2 Smt.Gunjan sister-in-law of Smt. Ruchi Attri is residing separately from Sh. Sanjeev Attri and his family members since July 2009. It is proved on record that domestic violence was committed upon Smt. Ruchi Attri within four walls of matrimonial house. Hence it is not expedient in the ends of justice to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 simply on the testimony of RW-2 because RW-2 is residing separately from other non-complainants since July 2009. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that Smt. Ruchi Attri has voluntarily left her matrimonial house without any reasonable cause is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 there are reasonable grounds for Smt. Ruchi Attri to live in her parental house. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that Smt. Ruchi Attri forced her husband to reside separately from his parents and when Sh. Sanjeev Attri refused to reside separately from his parents thereafter Smt. Ruchi Attri left her matrimonial house without any reasonable cause is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plea of the non-complainants that Smt. Ruchi Attri forced her husband to reside separately from his parents is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 17. In the present case even Protection Officer Smt. Geeta Verma has also submitted domestic violence report under Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate relating to physical and mental torture. There is no positive reason to disbelieve report of Protection Officer. 18. 17. In the present case even Protection Officer Smt. Geeta Verma has also submitted domestic violence report under Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate relating to physical and mental torture. There is no positive reason to disbelieve report of Protection Officer. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that protection order passed under Section 18 of the act is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that a married woman has legal right to reside in her matrimonial house with dignity and honour. No one can be allowed to use any threat to a married woman in her matrimonial house. It is held that protection order passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court is in consonance with law and proved facts. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that protection order passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court under section 19 of the act either to provide accommodation in the aforesaid shared house hold at his place or in the alternative to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) per month as rent charges in lieu of residence to the complainant is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that a married woman has legal right to reside in shared house hold or in the alternative to receive rent in lieu of residence. Protection order relating to shared house hold and in the alternative to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) per month as rent charges is also in accordance with law and proved facts and there is no infirmity in the order. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that protection order under section 20 of the act relating to payment of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) per month as maintenance allowance to the complainant and her minor daughter each total Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) is excessive in nature is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. In response Sh. Sanjeev Attri has admitted his monthly income as Rs.25,374/- (Twenty five thousand three hundred seventy four). In response Sh. Sanjeev Attri has admitted his monthly income as Rs.25,374/- (Twenty five thousand three hundred seventy four). Keeping in view the price index and keeping in view the fact that Smt. Ruchi Attri has also to maintain a minor daughter and keeping in view the income of Sh. Sanjeev Attri it is held that maintenance allowance is not excessive in nature. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved under section 58 of Indian evidence act 1872. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-complainants that protection order passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court to pay compensation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of mental torture and emotional distress is also excessive in nature is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that no married woman can be allowed to be tortured mentally and emotionally in her matrimonial house. As per testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 it is proved on record that Smt. Ruchi Attri was mentally and physically tortured within four walls of her matrimonial house. Hence it is held that compensation granted by learned Trial Court relating to mental torture and emotional distress is not excessive in nature. Domestic violence is undoubtedly human right issue. Domestic violence in India is increasing day by day. Domestic violence cannot be allowed to be continued in the society. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the protection order passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above present petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is dismissed. Files of learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court be sent back forthwith alongwith certified copy of this order. Certified copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost forthwith and copy of order be also sent to concerned SHO and concerned Protection Officer for necessary action. Cr.MMO No. 206/2015 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.