2025:HHC:37839 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 466 of 2023 Decided on : 11.11.2025 Gulshan Kumar …Petitioner Versus Smt. Meenakshi and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I) That this petition may kindly be allowed and Impugned order dated 06-07-2023 passed by Ld.. Additional Session Judge, Palampur, District Kangra HP. in Case No. CIS 34/2020, at Annexure P-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 24-12-2019 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class Palampur, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37839 District Kangra may kindly be upheld. ii) That the documents annexed as Annexure P-6 (Colly) and Annexure P-7 may kindly be ordered to be taken on record, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is before this Court against order dated 06.07.2023, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in Case No. 34/2020, in an Appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2005 Act’), in terms whereof, an amount of Rs.2,500/- as interim maintenance and Rs.1,000/- as rent, stands awarded in favour of respondent No.1. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that amount of Rs.3,500/- may appear to be meagre but fact of the matter is that the petitioner is only earning about Rs.9,000/- per month and the offspring of the petitioner and respondent No.1, are also residing with the petitioner and, therefore, in these circumstances, it is extremely difficult for the petitioner to abide by the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. He further submitted that as far as respondent No.1 3 2025:HHC:37839 is concerned, she is earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. This is disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. According to her, respondent No.1 is not presently employed anywhere and she also submitted that the amount of Rs.3,500/-, which has been granted to the respondent, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a compensation on the higher side. 5. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that impugned order has been passed by the learned Appellate Court only with regard to the adjudication of the issue of interim maintenance in the proceedings which have been initiated by the present respondent under the 2005 Act against her husband, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, these proceedings are disposed of without interfering with the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. But with the direction that uninfluenced by the said order, the main proceedings filed before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur, be decided in accordance with law, including the factum of the amount of final 4 2025:HHC:37839 maintenance, if any, is to be awarded to the wife. It goes without saying that in the course of deciding the application, principles of nature justice shall be adhered to and the parties shall be called upon to file their respective affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities. 6. With these observations, these proceedings are closed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 11, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)