IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 66 of 2018
Decided on: August 10, 2018
.
_
Praveen Singh …Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Nisha Devi …Respondent
_
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
_
For the Petitioner : Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ex parte.
_
Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)
As per report of the Registry, sole respondent namely
Smt. Nisha Devi is duly served, however, there is no
representation on her behalf as such, she is proceeded against ex
parte.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
6.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in CMA No. 272 of 2016 titled
Nisha Devi vs. Praveen Singh, whereby present petitioner
(respondent in the court below) has been directed to pay a sum
of ` 1,000/- as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent
(applicant before the court below) during the pendency of the
proceedings from the date of service of the petitioner and to pay a
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
13/08/2018 23:00:43 :::HCHP
2
sum of `2,000/- as litigation expenses, petitioner has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under
.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Having carefully perused order dated 6.5.2017, this
Court sees no reason to interfere with the same because findings
recorded by the court below appear to be based upon proper
appreciation of material adduced on record by the respondent.
Respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for divorce, against the petitioner in the Court of
learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, which is pending
adjudication. In the aforesaid proceedings, respondent filed an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying
therein for grant of maintenance pendente lite. Respondent
categorically claimed before the court below that she has no
source of income sufficient for her maintenance and necessary
expenses for litigation. Court below, taking note of the fact that
petitioner is a labourer by profession having agricultural land
and his total income from all sources being more than `15,000/-
per month, proceeded to grant `1,000/- per month as
maintenance pendente lite to the respondent during the
pendency of the proceedings and a sum of `2,000/- towards
litigation expenses, which in my considered view, is quite
13/08/2018 23:00:43 :::HCHP
3
reasonable and apposite, leaving no occasion for this Court to
interfere with the same.
.
4. Accordingly, in view of above, I find no merit in the
petition before me, which is accordingly dismissed. Order dated
6.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in CMA No. 272 of 2016 titled
Nisha Devi vs. Praveen Singh is upheld.
5. I find from the record that petitioner herein is a deaf
and dumb person and as such requires to be represented
through a court guardian to prosecute his interests in the court
below, as such, learned Court below is directed to pass
appropriate orders to ensure effective representation of the
petitioner before it.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
August 10, 2018
vikrant
13/08/2018 23:00:43 :::HCHP