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