Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP.M/618/2026 of MAHENDER PAL Vs MEENA KUMARI on 1 October 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.618 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________________ Mahender Pal ……...Appellant Versus Meena Kumari …....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.618 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________________ Mahender Pal
……...Appellant Versus Meena Kumari
…....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. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________________
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
CMP.M-618 of 2026
By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 80 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 and not intentional and further as the delay is not substantive, this application is allowed, as prayed for and delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
FAO (FC) No.53 of 2026
3. Be registered.
-2-
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. In light of the fact that the impugned order is an order granting interim maintenance, as agreed, this petition is disposed of with the direction that an endeavour shall be made by the learned Court below to dispose of the divorce petition as expeditiously as possible, and preferably by 30.06.2027. In case learned Court below finds any difficulty in doing so, it may approach this Court for extension of time.
(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal), Judge October 01, 2026 Rajeev Raturi