Gainda Mull and another vs Sunder Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Criminal Revision (FC) No.11 of 2024
Date of decision:02.11.2026

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Harpreet & another ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge .
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (oral):
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order
dated 08.06.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hamirpur, in a petition preferred by the respondents herein
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the
respondents, in terms whereof, the learned Court below, after taking
into consideration the fact that the respondents were awarded an
amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively in collateral
proceedings, i.e., proceedings under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was pleased to dispose of the petition by

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 2 -
directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per
High Court of H.P.
month to the wife and Rs. 3,500/- per month to the child.
2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law for the reason that the learned Court below has erred in
not taking into consideration the factum of compensation having been
awarded under the Domestic Violence Act also in favour of the
respondents herein. He further submitted that the financial capability of
the petitioner has also not been taken into consideration by the
learned Court below while passing the impugned order. Learned
counsel further submitted that the amount awarded be reduced so that
the petitioner is in a position to comply with the same. He has also
submitted that the petitioner is still willing to reside with the
respondent.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
has submitted that on one hand, the petitioner is submitting before this
Court that he is willing to reside with the respondents, whereas the
marriage between him and the wife has been dissolved by way of a
divorce in a petition which was preferred by the husband, against
which an appeal is pending. He further submitted that the contention
of the petitioner that the maintenance being paid to the respondents
under the Domestic Violence Act was not taken into consideration by
the learned Court below was completely wrong, because paragraph 24
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 3 -
of the impugned order demonstrates that the same was taken into
High Court of H.P.
consideration by the learned court below while passing the order. He
further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that his financial
capability was not taken into consideration by the learned Court below
was also totally incorrect, because the learned Court below took into
consideration the qualification of the petitioner herein as also the
factum of the petitioner at one stage being registered as the owner of a
Laboratory, which, as per the respondents, has now been registered
by him in the name of some other person. Learned counsel for the
respondents also argued that the respondents have placed on record
in the present proceedings the documents demonstrating that there
was a land purchased by the petitioner, which he surreptitiously gifted
to his mother, upon which, now a house stands constructed. He
submitted that all this demonstrated that the petitioner is a man of
means and yet, he was not willing to pay the meagre maintenance
amount awarded in favour of the respondents herein.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other
documents appended therewith.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, in
terms whereof, the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to
pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,500/- per
month to the child as maintenance.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 4 -
6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the
High Court of H.P.
petitioner that the order is bad, as the factum of a certain amount
having been awarded to the respondents herein under the Domestic
Violence Act has not been taken into consideration by the learned
Court below, is incorrect. A perusal of the order passed by the learned
Court below demonstrates that in Paragraph-24 thereof, learned Court
below took cognizance of the factum of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- respectively being paid to the respondents herein in
collateral proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter,
the learned court below observed that taking the entirety of the
circumstances into consideration, it was of the view that monthly
maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- in favour of the wife and Rs. 3,500/- in
favour of the child would be reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the amount which was awarded in favour of the respondents
herein under the Domestic Violence Act was not taken into
consideration by the learned Court below.
7. The second contention of the petitioner that the financial
status of the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the learned
court below is also contrary to the record. A perusal of the order
demonstrates that the learned court below took into consideration the
fact that the petitioner was a qualified Laboratory Assistant and, in fact,
till the year 2015, there was a Laboratory, which was registered in his
name. That being the case, thereafter why the petitioner was not
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 5 -
running the Laboratory is not for the Court to see. However, the fact of
High Court of H.P.
the matter remains that as there was a Clinical Laboratory registered
in his name from 2011 to 2015, i.e., M/s Jai Diagnostic Laboratory and
the licence whereof was not renewed by the petitioner after the year
2015, for his own act of omission, he cannot take advantage of the
same. This possibility can also not be ruled out that all this was done
by the petitioner just to evade the upkeep of the respondents, because
the record demonstrates that the dispute between the petitioner and
his wife is quite old.
8. Though we are aware of the fact that in order to examine
the legality of the impugned order before us, primarily we have to take
into consideration the record which was present before the learned
Court below, yet, herein the respondents have filed Cr.M.P. No. 1810
of 2025, placing on record additional documents and along with this
application, the respondents have appended a sale deed dated
16.03.2016, in terms whereof, the land mentioned in the said sale
deed has been purchased for an amount of Rs. 6,84,000/- by the
present petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar, son of Shri Amar Nath, from
one Shri Mohinder Singh. The record appended with this application
further demonstrate that thereafter this land was gifted by the
petitioner to his mother, namely, Smt. Brahmi Devi, vide gift deed
dated 06.04.2018. Petitioner was put to notice in the said application
and has filed reply thereto.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 6 -
9. A perusal of these documents demonstrates that the
High Court of H.P.
average value of the land in terms of the contents of the gift deed was
assessed at Rs.13,82,500/- at the time when the gift deed was
executed by the petitioner in favour of his mother. The existence of
these documents could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The above facts, therefore, do corroborate the contention of
the respondents that the petitioner is a person with financial capacity,
but probably he is finding ways and means to ensure that the
respondents are denied of their legal rights in terms of the order
passed in their favour by the learned Court below.
10. In light of the above discussions, as we do not find any
merit in the contention of the petitioner that the financial capacity of the
petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the learned court
below and further, as observed by us hereinabove also, as the factum
of the respondents having been granted certain compensation under
the Domestic Violence Act has also been taken into consideration by
the learned Court below, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned order. Otherwise also, we may observe that the
amount of maintenance that has been granted cannot be said to be
such a humongous amount which calls for any interference, as it is just
sufficient to take care of the respondent-wife as well as the minor son
of the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS

- 7 -
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed along with
High Court of H.P.
pending application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge


(Romesh Verma)
Judge
nd

2 November, 2026.
( vt )
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:02 :::CIS