2025:HHC:26339 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 234 of 2025 Decided on : 05.08.2025 Jamna Devi. …Petitioner Versus Sushil Kumar and another. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That this petition may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment dated 15.5.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal by the 13/14 (38/2011 No. Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, Camp at Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. and that of order dated 14.10.2011 passed in complaint No. 76-11/2010 District by the Judicial Magistrate Ist 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26339 Class Sarkaghat, ct Mandi, H.P. kindly may be modified and respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to provide adequate compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the petitioner as well as to her minor son. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to provide the residence to the petitioner as well as her son at Village & Post Office Bhararu, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in the ancestral hose of respondent No. 1, where he is residing.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned orders, this Court finds no infirmity therein. 3. The findings returned by the learned Courts are to the effect that no compensation, in fact, was claimed by the petitioner in the complaint filed by her. These findings are clearly borne out from the record. Though learned Trial Court granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- even in the absence of the claim of the petitioner, learned Appellate Court refused to enhance the same on the ground that as there was no prayer made for the grant of compensation, there was no occasion for the said Court to interfere with the order passed by 3 2025:HHC:26339 the learned Court below. 4. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not claimed any compensation, the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court, cannot be said to be perverse. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is the wife, the amount of compensation granted by the learned Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. 5. With this modification in the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the petition is disposed of. Let the amount be paid to the petitioner by respondent No.1, within a period of six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 05, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)