Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP.M/1086/2026 of MEENA KUMARI Vs MUKESH KUMAR on 6 October 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1086 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________________ Meena Kumari ……...Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.1086 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________________ Meena Kumari
……...Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting? _______________________________________________________________________
For the appellant: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent: None. ____________________________________________________________________
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
CMP(M) No.1086 of 2026
By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 167 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and having perused the averments made in the application, as this Court is satisfied that delay in filing the appeal is bona fide, not intentional and substantive, this application is allowed, as prayed for. Delay of 167 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
FAO (FC) No.55 of 2026
3. Be registered.
4. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Court below dated 09.01.2026, in terms whereof the petition preferred by the present petitioner under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent was allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reason which has led to the filing of this appeal is that, though this fact neither stood recorded in the statement of the appellant, or otherwise in the order passed by the learned Court below in the divorce petition, but there was an understanding entered into between the parties, in terms whereof the respondent was to return the stridhan of the appellant, which has not been returned.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that as the petition has been allowed by the learned Court below in light of the mutual consent given by the parties before the learned Court below on 09.01.2026, no appeal against the same can be filed on the grounds which have been urged in the grounds of appeal.
7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to avail such remedy qua the issues raised in this appeal, as may be permissible in law. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal), Judge October 06, 2026 Rajeev Raturi