CMPMO/803/2025 on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.803 of 2025

Date of decision:16.10.2026 Manmohan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus Mamta

...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate

For the respondent : Ex parte.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):

The instant petition has been filed assailing the order as passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kullu, dated 09.09.2025, whereby lawyer's fee to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- has been granted in favour of the respondent, Ms. Mamta.

2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the present petitioner, Manmohan Singh, filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage against the present respondent in the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kullu. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent, Smt. Mamta, filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to her.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. The learned Family Court, vide its impugned order, has passed the order for the grant of lawyer's fee to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the present respondent/applicant.

4. Feeling dissatisfied, the present petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. This Court on 09.01.2026 had issued notice for the service of respondent. However, despite being served, she has chosen not to appear in the present proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte on 30.09.2026.

6. The order which has been passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kullu, is legal, valid and sustainable, as the learned court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter in detail, especially in para 3.1 of the impugned order. Though, it has been admitted by the petitioner that after joining service, the respondent has not been paid a single penny, however, he has purchased a 3 BHK (HIG) flat for the respondent at NCR Delhi by spending Rs.22 lakhs.

7. In the application which was filed by the present respondent, it has been admitted that she is working as Nursing Officer at Lok Nayak Hospital Delhi. It has been averred that after retiring from Navy, petitioner got appointed with the H.P. State Electricity Board and he is getting pension and salary of about Rs.1,20,000/- per month.

8. The learned family Court has declined the relief of maintenance pendente lite on the premise that she herself is earning. As far as litigation expenses are concerned, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order as litigation has been initiated for the grant of divorce at the behest of petitioner, therefore, he is liable to pay the same. The expenses towards litigation have to be paid by the petitioner as he is a man of means and the respondent has to travel from Delhi to Kullu for attending the divorce proceedings.

9. Since the present petitioner is himself serving and can maintain the present respondent, therefore, this Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, whereby a lawyer's fee has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order as passed by the learned court below is legal, valid, and sustainable and it does not call for any interference in any manner.

11. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 16th October, 2026.

(vt)