MONIKA JASWAL vs HARSH KATHAIT

2026:HHC:20994
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
Reserved on: 9.4.2026
Date of decision: 02.6. 2026
Date of Uploading: 02.06.2026
Tilak Raj. …Petitioner.
Versus
Renu Sharma and Another. …Respondents.
Corum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner. Ms.Ambika Kotwal and Ms.Kalaunta Devi,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr.Harkrishan Singh Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
This Revision Petition has been preferred by Tilak Raj, who is
father of respondent No. 2 Era Sharma, against order dated 30.11.2023
passed in Petition under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short “Cr.P.C”) in Case No. 57 of 2020, titled as Era Sharma Vs. Tilak Raj
passed by Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,
whereby maintenance awarded in favour of Era Sharma at the rate of
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

2   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
1,500/- per month has been enhanced to 2,000/- per month from the date
₹ ₹
High Court of H.P.
of filing the petition i.e. 18.12.2020.
2. First of all it is noticeable that Revision Petition has been
preferred against respondent No. 1 Renu Sharma and respondent No. 2
Era Sharma, whereas marriage between Tilak Raj and Renu Sharma has
been dissolved by decree of divorce passed with mutual consent vide
judgment and decree dated 9.3.2020 passed by District Judge (Family
Court), Shimla in a petition filed under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent.
3. Petition for enhancement of maintenance amount was filed by
Era Sharma through her natural guardian Renu Sharma. In aforesaid facts
present Revision Petition was maintainable only against respondent No. 2
Era Sharma, but not against respondent No. 1 Renu Sharma who was not
party in proceedings before Trial Court, and thus her impleadment as
respondent No.1 is mis-joinder of party.
4. Though numerous grounds have been taken in Revision
Petition for assailing the impugned order dated 30.11.2023, however,
learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only ground by submitting
that petitioner is not against payment of maintenance, even enhanced
maintenance to his daughter Era Sharma, but the impugned order, passed
by Family Court, is an order passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is
not sustainable.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

3   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 1 had preferred a petition under
Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount,
whereas no maintenance amount was awarded in favour of respondent No.
2 Era Sharma under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but the amount of maintenance
was awarded to respondent No. 2 Era Sharma on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 for dissolution of
marriage on the basis of which their marriage was dissolved vide judgment
and decree dated 9.3.2020 with direction to the petitioner to pay
maintenance amount at the rate of 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2,
₹
Era Sharma, who was in care and custody of her mother Renu Sharma and
it was decreed that parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 shall bound
by their statements which shall form part of the decree.
6. In aforesaid facts, it has been contended that issue of
maintenance payable to respondent No. 2, has attained finality, where
Family Court has awarded 1,500/- per month maintenance in favour of
₹
respondent No. 2 Era Sharma, but without any clause of enhancement of
the said amount at subsequent times and, therefore, petition for
enhancement was not maintainable on this count.
7. It has been further submitted that when there is no amount
awarded under Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C., there was no question of
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

4   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
enhancement by filing petition under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. for
enhancement of the same.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had also been filed by Era Sharma and
Renu Sharma, which was disposed of on 14.9.2019 by Lok Adalat on
account of compromise being arrived at between the parties. It has been
stated that what was communicated before the Lok Adalat, was re-iterated
by learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) in his order dated 5.9.2019 as
under:-
“… I have further interacted with the parties in order to explore possibility
of conciliation and pursuant to interaction the matter stood settled and the
parties expressed their intention to seek divorce by way of mutual
consent. The respondent agreed to pay permanent alimony of
Rs.12,00,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 and monthly maintenance of
Rs.1500/- to the petitioner No. 2. Pursuant to such settlement, the
petitioner No. 1 stated on her behalf as well as on behalf of the minor
respondent No. 2 being mother and natural guardian that petition is
withdrawn. Petitioner No. 1 is identified by Sh. Varun Vashisht, Advocate.
Matter is ordered to be listed in the National Lok Adalat on 14.09.2019.”
9. On the basis of aforesaid agreement, petition filed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by Renu Sharma and Era Sharma, bearing
Case No. 57/2019/2015, titled as Renu Sharma & Another Vs. Tilak Raj,
was dismissed as withdrawn in National Lok Adalat, in terms of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

5   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
10. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of Era Sharma, which was
disposed of for agreement between her parents, whereby petitioner had
agreed to pay 1,500/- per month maintenance to his daughter Era
₹
Sharma.
11. During pendency of present Petition, as permitted by Co-
ordinate Division Bench vide order dated 31.10.2025, respondent had
placed on record copy of petition preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C and
orders dated 9.8.2019, 27.8.2019 and 5.9.2019 passed by the Family Court
and order dated 14.9.2019 passed in the Lok Adalat and these documents
clearly indicate that petition was preferred on behalf of Era Sharma for
maintenance, which was disposed of in terms of mutual understanding
arrived at between the parties.
12. We are of the considered opinion that though amount of
monthly maintenance at the rate of 1,500/- was awarded in the judgment
₹
and decree passed for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and
respondent No. 1, however, it is a matter of fact that petition under Section
125 Cr.PC was disposed of on the basis of said compromise, though
stating that it was dismissed as withdrawn.
13. Infact the petition was disposed of in terms of compromise
arrived at between the parties. Therefore, 1,500/- per month
₹
maintenance, ordered to be paid by petitioner to his daughter Era Sharma
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

6   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
in judgment and decree dated 9.3.2020, was made basis for disposal of
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it has to be deemed to
have been passed in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In aforesaid
facts, petition under Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement was
and is maintainable.
14. Even if a worst case is taken that petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn and no amount was awarded under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., thus also, Era Sharma was not precluded from filing
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, independent of amount
awarded in the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage of her
parents with mutual consent and at the time of determining quantum under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. the amount of maintenance awarded vide judgment
and decree dated 9.3.2020 was definitely to be taken into consideration
and, therefore, Family Court was not precluded from passing fresh order of
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after taking into consideration the
monthly maintenance already awarded in favour of Era Sharma.
15. Family Court has rightly used the word enhancement of
compensation amount for the reasons that 1,500/- per month maintenance
₹
was already granted in favour of Era Sharma and thus any maintenance
more than that, to be awarded even under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is to be
determined by taking into consideration maintenance amount of 1,500/-
₹
per month, already awarded in favour of Era Sharma and, therefore, any
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

7   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
addition of amount of maintenance would be termed as enhancement of
maintenance amount.
16. Petition preferred by respondent Era Sharma for
enhancement of maintenance amount, either treating as a fresh petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for the reason that earlier petition filed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn or treating it a petition for enhancement
under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in continuation of earlier petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C., both ways was and is maintainable. In case it is to be treated
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. then also there is no merit in present Revision
Petition and if it is considered to be filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C., in
continuation of earlier petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent
Era Sharma had and has a right to file and maintain the petition for
enhancement even it is considered that in earlier petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. zero amount was awarded, because there would be no remedy to
daughter to enhance maintenance awarded in decree of divorce between
her parents wherein she was not even party.
17. A person eligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
is not precluded from filing subsequent petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
after withdrawal of the first petition. At the most, such person can be held
dis-entitled for amount of maintenance, for the period for which
maintenance was claimed in the earlier petition preferred under Section 125
Cr.P.C. for dismissal of said petition as withdrawn.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

8   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
18. It is also apt to notice that it was claim of the petitioner that he
was jobless, but in cross-examination he has admitted that he has got a job
in July-August, 2021. He has also claimed that he has to look after his
parents and to maintain them, but in his cross-examination he has
categorically admitted that his father was a retiree from Animal Husbandry
Department as Junior Assistant and expenditure of medicines of his parents
is reimbursed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
19. As previous petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
dismissed as withdrawn on account of compromise between the parties,
therefore, for further enhancement, petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was
and is maintainable.
20. Plea of the petitioner that once amount of maintenance was
determined in the compromise on the basis of which marriage was
dissolved and the said condition of payment of maintenance at the rate of
1,500/- per month was part of that judgment and decree, then respondent
₹
had no right to file a petition for enhancement, is misconceived.
21. The compromise between the parents was arrived at when
respondent No.2 Era Sharma was minor and her right to claim maintenance
or enhancement of maintenance, cannot be curtailed only on the basis of
mutual agreement arrived at between her parents at the time of divorce.
Era Sharma has a right to get the maintenance altered which was and has
been ordered to be paid to her in judgment and decree dated 9.3.2020.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

9   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
High Court of H.P.
22. It is also apt to adjudicate issue raised by petitioner as to
whether after agreeing for maintenance amount of 1,500/- per month at
₹
the time of dissolution of marriage, by the mother on behalf of minor, can be
said the final agreement between the parties for all times to come. In our
considered opinion the answer is no. In changed circumstances, daughter,
receiving maintenance amount from her father, is entitled for enhancement
thereof, depending upon the facts and circumstances and increasing
expenses to have basic amenities. It would be a hypertechnic view if claim
of respondent Era Sharma for enhancement of maintenance amount is
rejected on technical ground which, otherwise, in view of discussion
hereinbefore, has been rightly enhanced by the Family Court by
entertaining the application preferred by daughter.
23. Being minor, Era Sharma was not capable to enter into an
agreement, however, her parents had entered into agreement on the basis
of mutual consent between them and they determined the monthly
maintenance payable to respondent No. 2 at the rate of 1,500/- per month.
₹
Respondent No. 2 has every right to file petition for enhancement of said
amount. The amount was awarded in the year 2020 and we are in 2026,
and monthly maintenance amount of 1,500/- is a meager amount, and
₹
being father of respondent No. 2 Era Sharma, petitioner cannot be shirked
from his responsibility to maintain his daughter. Rights of a minor cannot
be curtailed on the basis of agreement arrived at between parents of the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS

10   2026:HHC:20994
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 24 of 2024
said child. The amount of 1,500/- was awarded in the year 2020 and
₹
High Court of H.P.
enhancement was also ordered in the same year, however, now we are in
2026 and 2,000/- is a meager amount and thus enhancement of monthly
₹
maintenance amount from 1,500/- to 2,000/- is reasonable and justified.
₹ ₹
24. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the
petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed including miscellaneous
application(s), if any. Record of the Trial court be sent back forthwith.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
nd
2 June, 2026
(Keshav)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 13:32:17 :::CIS