Himachal Pradesh High Court
FAO(FC)/9/2021 of HEM LATA Vs SURINDER PAL on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(FC) No.09 of 2021 Date of decision: 05.10.2026. Smt. Hem Lata …..Appellant Versus Surender Pal …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
2026:HHC:43124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(FC) No.09 of 2021 Date of decision: 05.10.2026. Smt. Hem Lata …..Appellant
Versus Surender Pal …..Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, in terms thereof, the petition preferred by the respondent herein under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stood allowed.
2. When this case was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that the parties have entered into a settlement deed and in terms of the said settlement deed, all the issues between them have been amicably 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes settled for an amount of 9,00,000/-, which already stands paid by ₹9,00,000/-, which already stands paid by the husband to the wife.
3. In light of this development, this appeal is disposed of without interfering with the judgment and decree under challenge and by taking on record the settlement deed with the observation that this settlement deed entered into between the appellant and the respondent shall not be construed to have determined the rights of the minor son, who can always claim due and admissible maintenance from his father in his own capacity. (See: Ganesh versus Sudhir Kumar Srivastava & others, (2020) 20 SCC 787). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge
05th October, 2026. (yogesh)