Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 785 (HP)

Master Arsh v. State of H. P.

2013-09-02

DEV DARSHAN SUD, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. We find from the order dated 6.1.2012 that the parties had compromised the matter in this Court and decided to live together. The Court records:- “6.1.2012 Present: S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG & Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG, for respondents No.1 & 4. Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Learned counsel on both sides report that the disputes between the parties have been settled and they have forgiven each other and forgotten the past and are living happily with their child. Post on 23.3.2012. Sd/- (K.J.)C.J. Sd/- (V.K.A.)J.” 2. On 31.8.2012 the Court again records:- “31.08.2012 Present: S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 4. Parties in person. It is heartening to note that master Arsh is exuberantly happy that he is able to live with his father and mother. Shri Ajay Chandel has agreed to go and stay with his wife Smt.Shweta and master Arsh at her parental home in Shimla alongwith parents today. Smt.Shweta alongwith master Arsh will stay at her husband’s house at Sarkaghat tomorrow and the family thereafter will proceed to Jalandhar. Post on 2nd September, 2013. Sd/- (K.J.)C.J. Sd/- (D.C.C.)J.” 3. When this petition was taken up today by us for disposal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputes still survive inter se between the parties with respect to the rights pending in the trial Court under various Acts. 4. We find it most unfortunate that the orders of the High Court, which is a Court of record, are being controverted. On two occasions earlier the parties appeared before the Court and submitted an amicable settlement which is now sought to be by passed. We say nothing but dispose of the petition leaving it open to the parties to settle their rights pending in the trial Court. We direct that what this Court records is the correct position and it will not be open to the parties to urge before any other Court that the two orders have not been rightly recorded. Petition disposed of.