Uttarakhand High Court
AO/244/2024 of MAHENDRA SINGH Vs MAMTA BISHT on 27 October 2025
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 244 of 2024 Mahendra Singh ...... Appellant Vs. Mamta Bisht ..... Respondent Present: Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 244 of 2024
Mahendra Singh
...... Appellant
Vs.
Mamta Bisht
..... Respondent
Present: Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram:
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023, passed in Civil Suit No.24 of 2023, Smt. Mamta Bisht Vs. Mahendra Singh, by the court of Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, an application, filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 13 of the Act by the respondent seeking divorce from the appellant.
4. In the case, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent is earning more than Rs. 1 lakh per month, whereas, the appellant does not work. He has no source of income. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to pay him Rs. 60,000/- as litigation expenses. This application has been rejected, which is impugned.
2
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties submits that the matter has been considered in the mediation proceedings on 07.10.2025, when parties had entered into settlement, which has been recorded also.
5. Since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the appeal is decided in terms of the compromise that has been entered into on 07.10.2025 before the mediator.
6. The settlement recorded on 07.10.2025 shall form part of this order.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.10.2025
Ravi Bisht