GURPREET SINGH alias MINTU vs POONAM DEVI

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

2026:HHC:47175
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 806 of 2026
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
_______________________________________________________________________
Gurpreet Singh @ Mintu ……...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Poonam Devi ……...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
_______________________________________________________________________

For the applicant/petitioner: Dr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate.
____________________________________________________________________

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)

By way of this application, a prayer has been made for
condonation of 2 years and 3 days’ delay, as is calculated by the
Registry of this Court, in filing the present revision petition, which
revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P.,
dated 01.02.2024.
2. The impugned order reads as under:
“Respondent made a statement placed on record that he has
compromised the matter with petitioner and undertakes to pay
₹ 5000/- per month from today as maintenance and paying today itself
a sum of ₹ 10,000/-. He shall deposit the amount of maintenance in
the account of petitioner by 7th of each month and prayed that case
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:11:23 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47175
-2-
High Court of H.P.
be decided accordingly. The statement of petitioner also recorded
whereby she acknowledged the receipt of ₹ 10,000/-, and
endorsed/accepted the statement of respondent and prayed that
petition be decided accordingly. In view of statements of parties,
petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C, is decided as compromised. The respondent
₹
is accordingly directed to pay maintenance at the rate of 5000/- per
month from today which the respondent to deposit in the account of
petitioner by the 7th of every month. Petition is accordingly disposed
of as compromised. The statements of parties shall form part of order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, become infructuous. Be tagged. File
after due completion be consigned to record room.”

3. This order has been passed on the basis of the statement
that was made before the learned Court below by the
applicant/petitioner (for short, ‘petitioner’) on 01.02.2024, copy
whereof is also appended with the present petition.
4. The reasons spelled out in the application for filing the
petition belatedly, inter alia , are that the petitioner is a rustic person,
the parties had arrived at a settlement qua their disputes and the
father of the petitioner had transferred 50% share of the property in
favour of the respondent, qua which mutation was also entered and
that the petitioner was not aware about the consequences of the
impugned order, as he was unable to understand the contents of
settlement in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:11:23 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47175
-3-
High Court of H.P.

5. Having heard Dr. Barowalia, learned counsel for the
petitioner and having perused the averments made in the application,
we are of the considered view that the present application deserves
dismissal.
6. Though ordinarily while deciding an application filed for
condonation of delay, the Court does not touch upon the merits of the
case, but in the peculiar facts of this case, we would like to refer to the
contents of the impugned order.
7. In terms of the impugned order, learned Court below
directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance to the present
respondent at the rate of ₹ 5,000/- per month from the date of the order.
This order was passed on the basis of a statement made by the present
petitioner before the Court on the same day, in which he stated that he
had compromised the matter with the respondent and he undertakes
₹
to pay 5,000/- per month from the date of the statement, i.e.
01.02.2024, to the respondent.
8. A perusal of the statement of the petitioner, which is
recorded in vernacular and not in English, demonstrates that what was
recorded therein was that the matter stood compromised by the
petitioner with his wife and in lieu of the same he would pay an amount
of ₹ 5,000/- per month as from 01.02.2024 and that this maintenance
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:11:23 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47175
-4-
High Court of H.P.
th
amount shall be paid by him to the respondent on or before the 07 of
each month.
9. The statement of the present petitioner which was recorded
before the learned Court below cannot be termed to be an ambiguous
statement. It was an unambiguous statement in which it was clearly
recorded, as was stated by the petitioner before the learned Court
below, that he shall be paying an amount of ₹ 5,000/- per month as
from the date of the compromise, i.e. 01.02.2024, in lieu of monthly
maintenance.
10. The statement not only bears the signature of the present
petitioner, but record demonstrates that the petitioner was identified
by his counsel before the learned Court below, whose signatures are
also there on the statement of the present petitioner.
11. Not only this, in this statement, which was made by the
petitioner, there is no reference whatsoever of the settlement deed on
which the petitioner is now relying upon, i.e. settlement deed dated
23.05.2023. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in the
application that he was not aware of the impact of the order, etc., does
not satisfy us. According to us, the petition has been filed just to
wriggle out of the order that was passed by the learned Court below
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:11:23 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47175
-5-
High Court of H.P.
which was passed on the basis of the statement made by the present
petitioner.
12. We may add that the statement of the petitioner was
recorded in vernacular and it is not his case that he does not even
understand Hindi. The petitioner duly signed the statement before the
learned Court below. The statement was made and recorded in the
presence of his counsel and therefore also, it cannot be believed that
neither the petitioner nor his counsel were aware as to what was being
recorded in the statement or what order was passed by the Court on
the basis of this statement.
13. Therefore, as the filing of the petition along with the present
application for condonation of delay of more than 2 years is just an
afterthought and further, as we do not find any merit in the present
application so as to condone the inordinate delay, the same is
dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge


(Yogesh Jaswal),
Judge
October 27, 2026
Rajeev Raturi
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:11:23 :::CIS