Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1079 (HP)

Prem Chand Sharma v. Sudershana Sharma

2025-05-20

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. 1. 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.” 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 of2019 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. 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. 1 29.6.2024 OP: 8-S/11 of 18 CR 127/2024 2 29.6.2024 EP: 9-S/10 of 2019/18 CR 128/2024 3 29.6.2024 OP: 9-S/11 of 18 CR 139/2024 4 29.6.2024 EP:15-S/10 of 2019 CR 140/2024 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. 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 re-appreciated 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. 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.