2026:HHC:38077 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision (F.C.) No.21 of 2025 Decided on: 08.09.2026 Deepak Kumar .… Petitioner/Respondent. Versus Smt. Anju Bala & another …. Respondents/Petitioners. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.Nimish Gupta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chamba in Case No. No.140/2019, may kindly be set aside and the Petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the respondents may kindly be dismissed throughout with cost, in the interest of law, justice, equity and fair play.” 2. When this case was listed on 11.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “Cr.M.P. No. 3411 of 2026 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:38077 This application has been filed with prayer to dispose of the petition in terms of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties. Perusal of the terms and conditions of the compromise/settlement prima facie indicates that term No. 6 of the compromise is detrimental to the interest of the minor. No affidavit has been filed, nor any averments have been made in the application or in the compromise, that term pertaining the right of the minor child, debarring from claiming maintenance, is in the interest of minor. Any illegal term of the compromise can be struck down or ignored by the Court for deciding the matter. However, it is a matter of matrimonial/family dispute, therefore, it would be appropriate for the parties to file their respective affidavits by stating the terms of compromise therein, which are neither illegal, nor in conflict with law or public policy. Needful be done within two weeks. List for further orders on 31.08.2026.” Thereafter, when the case was listed on 31.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “As per report of the Registry, affidavits in terms of previous order not filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavit on behalf of the petitioner stands filed with the Registry today itself. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that needful shall be done during the course of the day. As prayed for, list on 08.09.2026. Registry is directed to ensure that affidavits filed by the parties are placed on record by the next date.” 3. Today, in terms of Cr.M.P. 3411 of 2026, which is hereby allowed, a 3 2026:HHC:38077 joint application has been filed, in terms whereof, the Court stands informed that the matter between the parties has been settled as per compromise, copy whereof is appended with the present application. 4. In light of this development, this petition is disposed of by modifying the order under challenge and by observing that now the issue between the parties shall be construed to have been put to rest in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the terms whereof shall form part of this order passed by us. It goes without saying that the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise, as well as the affidavit appended therewith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 08, 2026 (Rishi)