Shamsher Singh Vs Sumitra Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	CMPMO No. 466/2024 Decided on: 17.09.2024
Shamsher Singh	…Petitioner
Sumitra Devi	Versus ....Respondent.

¶3

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the petitioner:	Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr. Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Prashant Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. I.N. Mehta, Advocate.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered

¶8

the case file as well as the case record.

¶9

2 An order was passed on 30.11.2015 by the learned Trial Court allowing the application moved by the respondent under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In terms of the said order, the respondent was held entitled to protection order in her favour; Petitioner was prohibited from doing any act of domestic violence against the respondent; Petitioner was also not to communicate with the respondent without her consent; The respondent was also provided with residence order; The petitioner was restrained from dispossessing the respondent from her

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2

¶12

matrimonial house whenever she would come to her matrimonial house; There was also direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent; The maintenance order was to come into force from 30.11.2015; The respondent was also held entitled to the cost of Rs.10,000/-.

¶13

3. It appears that the respondent thereafter instituted three execution petitions against the petitioner for executing the above order, for different time periods. First was Execution Petition No.31/2018, second was Execution Petition No.101/16 and third was Execution Petition 101/4/2016.

¶14

3(a) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed his objections to the Execution Petition Nos. 31/2018 and 101/4/2016, but no order has been passed in the said petitions. The objections filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid execution petitions have not been considered and decided by the learned Trial Court.

¶15

3(b) The grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is against the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in Execution Petition No. 101/2016. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the petitioner had already been proceeded against ex-parte. In terms of the impugned order, warrant of arrest issued for his service had been received back un-

¶16

3

¶17

executed. Fresh warrant of arrest for securing his presence executable through concerned SHO was issued.

¶18

3(c) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already filed his objections to the two petitions preferred by the respondent i.e. Execution Petition Nos. 31/2018 and 101/4/2016. The issue involved in the Execution Petition No. 101/4/2016 was also the same as involved in the aforenumbered petitions, therefore without deciding the objections preferred by the petitioner, warrant of arrest should not have been issued for securing his presence in the Execution Petition No. 101/16. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cause his presence before the learned Trial Court on the date that may be given by this Court for making his submission against the execution of the order dated 30.11.2015.

¶19

3(d) Learned counsel for the respondent has no serious objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitoner. He, however, submitted that the petitioner has not been paying any maintenance amount to the respondent despite the order having been passed as far back on 30.11.2015. He further submitted that the petitioner had been intentionally not appearing before the learned Trial Court. Be that as it may.

¶20

4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already preferred his objections in the Execution Petition Nos.

¶21

4

¶22

31/2018 and 101/4/2016 preferred by the respondent covering different period towards implementation of order dated 30.11.2015, as also the fact that these objections have not yet been decided by the learned Trial Court and keeping in view the fact that the issue involved in Execution Petition No. 101/16 is stated to be the same as involved in the other afore-numbered execution petitions, it would be in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to present his case before the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No. 101/16. However, looking to the conduct of the petitioner inasmuch as he has not been attending the proceedings before the learned Trial Court in the execution petitions coupled with the fact that he was proceeded against ex-parte in Execution Petition No.101/16 and noticing submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 20,000/- upon the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. The cost shall be payable by the petitioner to the respondent before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.10.2024. Learned Trial Court is directed to make earnest efforts for disposing of the afore-numbered petitions as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from 17.10.2024. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not remain present before the learned Trial

¶23

5

¶24

Court on the aforesaid date and does not pay the cost to the respondent on the next date of listing before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court shall proceed further in the mater, in accordance with law. Record be returned forthwith.

¶25

With the above observations/directions, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

17^th September, 2024 (rohit)

Shamsher Singh v. Sumitra Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsher Singh v. Sumitra Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanak Chand Gupta Vs State of Hp and Others

Amlesh Yadav alias Kamlesh Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Manu Singhvi Vs Harsh Mahajan

Vinta Devi Vs Suresh Kumar

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Narotam Ram Vs the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Sjvnl and Others