Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prem Chand Sharma vs Sudershana Sharma on 20 May, 2025
2025:HHC:14889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 127 of 2024 a/w CR Nos.
128, 139 and 140 of 2024
Reserved on: 15.5.2025
Date of decision: 20.5.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Civil Revision No. 127 of 2024
Prem Chand Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Sudershana Sharma ...Respondent
2. Civil Revision No. 128 of 2024
Prem Chand Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Sudershana Sharma ...Respondent
3. Civil Revision No. 139 of 2024
Prem Chand Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Sudershana Sharma ...Respondent
4. Civil Revision No. 140 of 2024
Prem Chand Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Sudershana Sharma ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya,Judge.
-2-
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner(s): Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Banta,
Advocate
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
All these petitions have been heard and are
being decided by a common judgment, as common
question of facts and law are involved.
2. The petitioner and respondent were husband
and wife. Their marriage was dissolved by a compromise
decree dated 29.12.2008, passed by the learned District
Judge (Forest), Shimla. The terms of the compromise
entered between the parties were made part of the decree.
3. The controversy in all these petitions is revolving
around Clause-2 of the terms of the compromise, which
read as under:-
"That at the time of marriages of the daughters and
son the first party/Shri Prem Chand will bear half
expenses of simple marriage and remaining half
expenses will be borne by the Second party/Smt.
Sudershana Sharma and the Second party will
inform the first party one month before the marriage."
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
4. The parties hereto have two daughters and a
son. After the aforesaid compromise, all of them have been
married and the expenses of their marriage have been
incurred by the respondent. In order to claim 50% of the
expenses borne by the respondent on the marriages of her
daughters and son in terms of the above noted Clause-2 of
the terms of settlement, she filed two separate execution
petitions.
5. In Execution Petition (EP) No. 9-S/10 of
2019/18, a claim was made for 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.
11 lakhs spent on the marriage of both the daughters and
in the second, Execution Petition (EP) No. 15-S/10 of 2019
50% amount i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs spent on the marriage of son
was claimed.
6. The petitioner filed Objection Petitions (OPs) in
both the EPs. In EP 9-S/10 of 2019/18 the OP was
registered as OP No. 8-S/11 of 2018 and in EP 15-S/10 of
2019 the OP was registered as OP No. 9-S/11 of 2019.
7. Learned Executing Court has decided the EP 9-
S/10 of 2019/18 and OP No. 8-S/11 of 2018 by a common
order dated 29.6.2024. Similarly, EP 15-S/10 of 2019 and
OP No. 9-S/11 of 2019 have been decided by a separate
common order though of the same date i.e. 29.6.2024
8. Both the OPs were filed by the petitioner herein
raising objection primarily on following grounds:
(a) Petitioner had paid a lump-sum amount of
Rs. 15,00,000/- at the time of passing of
compromise decree which included the
expenses of marriage of daughter and son
of the parties;
(b) the daughters and son had also been
awarded separate sums by way of decree
under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act,1956;
(c) the respondent had not informed the
petitioner regarding the marriage of their
children one month before the date of
marriage;
(d) the claim raised by the respondent was
exaggerated and excessive and
(e) the petitioner had agreed to bear half
expenses of the marriages of the children
provided the marriages were solemnized in
simple manner.
9. Learned Executing Court framed issues. The
parties led evidence. The EPs of respondent have been
allowed and OPs of the petitioners have been dismissed
and the petitioner has been held liable to pay Rs.
9,00,000/- in EP 9-S/10 of 2019/18 and Rs. 4,00,000/- in
EP 15-S/10 of 2019 as his share/ contribution towards the
marriage expenses of daughters and son respectively.
10. Thus, the instant petitions have been filed to
assail the above orders with following details:
Sr.No Date of Order Proceeding Civil Revision
No.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the record carefully.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the objections raised by the petitioner were
genuine and bonafide but learned executing court has
erred in rejecting all the objections by impugned orders.
According to him the clause-2 of the terms of
settlement/compromise between the parties has been
misread. The learned executing court though has found the
obligation of respondent to give prior information to
petitioner about the marriage as a condition precedent, yet
has decided the issue against the petitioner. He further
submitted that petitioner was not liable to pay anything
towards the marriage expenses of daughters and son, as
the respondent had paid a lump sum amount of Rs.
15,00,000/- at the time of passing of compromise decree
for divorce. He further contended that the liability of
petitioner was to share the expenses for simple and not the
elaborate or fancy marriage. Learned Executing Court has
erred in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective.
13. In revisional jurisdiction, this court will interfere
with the impugned orders only in case those are found to
be highly illegal or perverse. The findings of facts will not
be reappreciated as a court of appeal.
14. Since the entire dispute hovers around clause 2
of the settlement/ compromise deed it will be appropriate
to have a re-look on the attending circumstances. The
compromise had been effected between the parties after
long drawn litigation and with a purpose to end the
litigations and disputes, not to multiply them. In this
backdrop it would not be justified to say that the duty to
inform petitioner one month prior to marriage was a
condition precedent. Even otherwise, the condition
precedent could have been inferred, in case the parties had
agreed to avoid the obligation under Clause-2 in the event
of the default by the other. Moreover, the petitioner cannot
be allowed to avoid his legal as well as moral obligation by
taking shelter of technicalities.
15. It is not disputed that the marriages of
daughters and son of the parties had been solemnized.
Another objection raised by the petitioner was that the
marriages were not simple. Again, the simplicity in
marriage is a relative term. Simple means modest and not
fancy or wasteful. One of the factors to assess whether the
marriage was simple or fancy will be its cost. The
respondent has alleged that she has spent about Rs.
34,00,000/- on all the three marriages, which was
solemnized between the years 2016 to 2018. Keeping this
in view, it cannot be said that the marriage was not simple.
Average expenses of Rs. 11,00,000/- approximately on
each of the marriage cannot be said to be exorbitant.
16. As regards the quantum of share payable by the
petitioner towards the marriage expenses quantified by the
learned Executing Court, the same is based upon the
evidence produced by the parties. After making objective
assessment the learned executing court has held a total of
Rs 13,00,000/- to be a reasonable amount payable by the
petitioner to the respondent as his 50% contribution
towards the marriage expenses of two daughters and a son.
The findings of fact returned by the learned Executing
Court are duly borne from the record. The respondent has
led sufficient evidence to prove expenses on jewellery,
catering and charges for marriage venues etc. The
petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or
perversity in the impugned orders.
17. Other objections with respect to lump sum
payment of Rs.15,00,000/- or amount received by the
daughter and son of the parties under a decree of civil
court in terms of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
have been rightly ignored being not relevant to the issue.
18. In result, I find no merit in the instant petitions
and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent
back forthwith.
(Satyen Vaidya)
20th May, 2025 Judge
(kck)
