The obligation to share marriage expenses under a compromise decree is enforceable regardless of prior notice, and 'simple' marriages are defined by modesty rather than extravagance.

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. 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:

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,