##PAGE1##

2025:HHC:46178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO(FC) No.15 of 2024

Reserved on : 17.12.2025

Decided on : 31..12.2025

Dhananjay Kanwar. ...Appellant.

Versus

Astha Thakur. o …Respondent.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Vrerma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the appellant o: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Si ngh Thakur, Judge

Appellant, who was husband of the respondent, has

preferred this appeal against order dated 02.04.2022 passed by

learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur (H.P.), in

HMA No.1 of 2019 titled as ‘Astha Thakur vs. Dhananjay Kanwar’, filed

under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘HM Act’),

whereby, allowing the petition preferred by respondent-Astha Thakur,

a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:38:15 :::CIS

FAO(FC) No.15 of 2024

-2-

decision of main petition and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses have

been awarded. P

2. Appellant-Dhananjay Kanwar and respon.dent-Astha

Thakur were married with each other on 19.05.2014 as per Hindu rites

and ceremonies.

3. On account of discord between the parties, respondent-

Astha Thakur preferred a petition bearing HMA No.140 of 2016 under

Section 13(1)(ia) of HM Act for drissolution of marriage. The said petition

was not contested by the appellant-Dhananjay Kanwar, and resultantly,

the marriage between the parties was dissolved vide ex parte judgment

and decree dateCd 31.01.2018.

4. During pendency of petition bearing HMA No.140 of 2016

filed for dissolution of marriage, respondent had preferred a petition

under Section 24 of HM Act bearing HMA No.42 of 2017 on 07.02.2017

for grant of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per

month and expenses of proceeding at the rate of Rs.30,000/-. The said

petition was allowed by Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2017

granting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month

from the date of filing of the application/petition till the pendency of the

petition filed for decree of divorce and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-

in favour of respondent-Astha Thakur.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:38:15 :::CIS

FAO(FC) No.15 of 2024

-3-

5. On 18.04.2018, respondent-Astha Thakur preferred a

petition under Section 25 of HM Act bearing HMA No.115 of 2018P for

grant of permanent alimony and maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/-

per month and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. During pendency of aforesaid petition bearing HMA

No.115 of 2018, respondent-Astha Thakur opreferred a petition under

Section 24 of HM Act on 21.12.2018 bearing HMA No.1 of 2019 for

grant of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month

and litigation expenses to thue tune of Rs.30,000/-.

7. During pendency of HMA No.115 of 2018, petition bearing

HMA No.1 of 2C019 was allowed by Family Court vide order dated

02.04.2022 (impugned in present appeal) by awarding Rs.25,000/- per

month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of petition

gtill decision of main petition and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. Admittedly, appellant-Dhananjay Kanwar remarried on

22.05.2021 and respondent-Astha Thakur remarried on 14.12.2022.

9. On 29.08.2023, respondent, Astha Thakur, made

statement before the Trial Court that, as she had remarried on

14.12.2022, she did not press the petition bearing HMA No.115 of 2018

w.e.f. 14.12.2022, but with rider that she had been awarded

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:38:15 :::CIS

FAO(FC) No.15 of 2024

-4-

maintenance as per order dated 02.04.2022 passed in HMA No.1 of

2019. The said order is impugned in the present appeal. P

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present appeal. has been

filed on the grounds that inasmuch as no opportunity was granted to

the appellant to le