Smt. Sandhri Singh vs Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 22683 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 59 of 2005
 
Appellant :- Smt. Sandhri Singh
 
Respondent :- Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.B. Yadav,R.P.Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajiv Kumar,K.R. Singh,K.R. Sirohi,R.K. Singh,Rajeev Kumar,Satendra Tripathi,Tarun Agrawal,Vivek Prasad Mathur
 
WITH
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 643 of 2021
 
Appellant :- Kumari Shalini Singh
 
Respondent :- Dinesh Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Agrawal,Sanjiv Singh,Surya Bhan Singh,V.P.Mathur
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

1. Heard Sri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent/husband.

2. In First Appeal No.59 of 2005, the wife is the appellant who has filed the Appeal praying to set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2005 and the decree dated 25.01.2005 in Matrimonial Petition No.64 of 2000 (Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. Smt. Sandhri Singh) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.

3. The parties in the above noted First Appeal No.59 of 2005 were husband and wife. The appellant in First Appeal No.643 of 2021 is their daughter who has filed the appeal praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011 in Petition No.218 of 2006 (Kumari Shalini Vs. Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh), passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi whereby the defendant- respondent/father has been directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to her towards maintenance as she was minor daughter.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that now the aforesaid appellant Shalini Singh has become major and has been married, therefore, now this First Appeal No.643 of 2021 has become infructuous. Hence it may be dismissed accordingly.

The prayer is accepted and the First Appeal No.643 of 2021 is dismissed accordingly.

4. The aforesaid First Appeal No.59 of 2005, was heard on several occasions. During the course of hearing learned counsels for the parties on instructions, stated that the parties are willing to enter into compromise. The order dated 17.11.2022 and 21.12.2022 passed by this Court reflecting the intention of the parties to enter into compromise are reproduced below :

"17.11.2022

Heard Sri R.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant/wife and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/husband.

Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent were married with each other on 22.04.1994. It appears that some dispute arose between them. The plaintiff-respondent filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1955) on the ground of cruelty being Matrimonial Petition No.64 of 2000, (Dinesh Pratap Singh versus Smt. Sandhri Singh), which was decreed by the judgment dated 11.01.2005 and the decree dated 25.01.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi. Against this judgment and decree the defendant-appellant/wife has filed the present appeal.

The present appeal was dismissed by this Court on 12.11.2009 as infructuous by efflux of time. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent states that thereafter on 13.12.2009, the plaintiff-respondent has married with one Anjula. Recall application was filed by the defendant-appellant for recalling the order dated 12.11.2009. Subsequently, by order dated 09.05.2011, the appeal was restored to its original number. On 24.04.2012 the appeal was again dismissed as infructuous. The defendant-appellant again filed recall application on 27.04.2012 and the appeal was restored to its original number by order dated 04.08.2012.

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal has become infructuous as the plaintiff-respondent has contracted second marriage on 13.12. 2009 after dismissal of the appeal on 12.11.2009. Thus in terms of Section 15 of the Act, 1955, the second marriage is lawful and the present appeal has become infructuous in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnaveni Rai versus Pankaj Rai, (2020) 11 SCC 253 (paragraphs 30 to 34). He further submits that Section 15 of the Act, 1955 has to give a purposive interpretation as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Mittal versus Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691 (paragraphs 22 to 29).

He submits that under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment afore noted, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second marriage is not lawful and violative of Section 15 of the Act, 1955, yet the second marriage cannot be declared void. Therefore, the only option now left is to compensate the defendant-appellant by grant of permanent alimony.

He further submits that a breathing time may be given for seeking instructions that what amount the plaintiff-respondent is ready and willing to pay to the defendant-appellant as permanent alimony, which may also satisfy the grievance of the defendant-appellant raised in the connected appeal.

Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant admits the factual position as submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff but submits that the amount of permanent alimony should be such which may be sufficient for survival of the defendant-appellant and repayment the loans which she took for education and marriage of the daughter. He also prays for a little time to obtain instructions.

As jointly prayed, list/put up in the additional cause list on 25.11.2022 at 02:00 PM for further hearing along-with connected appeals.

21.12.2022

Heard Sri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

The defendant-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent are personally present in court pursuant to our order dated 20.12.2022. The defendant-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent, both have shown agreement to give an end to all civil and criminal litigation between them and accordingly the plaintiff-respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant-appellant.

Learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the parties shall file their joint affidavit mentioning the terms of settlement. Bank-draft of the amount shall be handed over by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant on the next date fixed.

As jointly prayed by learned counsels for the parties, list/ put up in the additional cause list on 23.12.2022 at 10:00 A.M. "

5. Today, the appellant and the respondent have filed joint affidavit alongwith an application dated 23.12.2022, which is taken on record. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid joint affidavit of the parties, are reproduced below :

"3. That on account of supervening events and passage of substantial period the parties have decided to amicably resolve the issue between themselves. The terms of settlement are being reproduced herein below:

(i) The respondent-plaintiff (Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh) shall pay to the appellant-defendant (Smt. Sandhri Singh) an amount of Rs. 20 lacs towards full and final settlement. The respondent-plaintiff Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh has already got prepared the following three demand drafts, viz.:

(a) DD No. 035000 dated 22.12.2022 for Rs. 4 lacs in favour of Smt. Sandhri Singh.

(b) DD No. 865273 dated 22.12.2022 for Rs. 8 lacs in favour of Smt. Sandhri Singh.

(c) DD No. 448028 dated 22.12.2022 for Rs. 8 lacs in favour of Smt. Sandhri Singh.

(d) The three original Demand Drafts viz. DD Nos. 035000, 865273&448028 cumulatively for Rs. 20 lacs shall be handed over to Smt. Sandhri Singh or her counsel at the time of hearing before the Court on 23.12.2022. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court Copies of the three Demand Drafts is being attached as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

(ii) This amount of Rs. 20 lacs represent full and final alimony to be paid to Smt. Sandhri Singh. No further amount shall be payable to the appellant-defendant in the future. The appellant-respondent shall have no claim whatsoever against the respondent-plaintiff in the future.

(iii) That upon receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20 lacs, Smt. Sandhri Singh shall take steps to withdraw all cases (civil and criminal) instituted by her against the plaintiff respondent Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh. Smt. Sandhri Singh shall cooperate in the quashing of all criminal proceedings pending before any court of law. The details of cases are given hereinunder.

(a) Case No. 296/18, Sandhri Singh vs Dinesh Pratap Singh, u/s 127 CrPC pending in the court of ADJ/FTC-1, Varanasi

(b) A482 No. 682/2006, Dinesh Pratap Singh is State of UP and another arising out of Case Crime No. 91/2001, u/ss. 498A, 506 IPC 1/w S. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (dismissed for want of prosecution on 31.8.2018) (arising out from complaint Case No-37 of 2004, P. S. Shivpur, Varanasi).

(iv) It is agreed by Smt. Sandhri Singh that she will file the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the instant appeal before the concerned courts within 30-days and will get all the cases instituted by her against the respondent/plaintiff and his family members withdrawn.

(v) In case no application for withdrawal is filed within 30-days, the respondent/plaintiff shall be at liberty to move a similar application alongwith a certified copy of the judgment and decree of the instant appeal before the concerned courts for appropriate orders of withdrawal or quashing. Smt. Sandhi Singh shall have no objection to the withdrawal or quashing. Smt. Sandhri Singh further agrees that certified copy of the of the judgment and decree of the instant appeal.

(vi) It is agreed between the parties that Rs. 20 lacs represents full and final settlement between them. No amount remains to be paid to the appellant-defendant Smt. Sandhri Singh. She will not claim any amount from the respondent-plaintiff in the future. The claim of maintenance under Section 125 and/or Section 127 CrPC shall stand dismissed upon receipt of Rs. 20 lakhs.

(vii) Upon receipt of demand draft as aforesaid, the present first appeal shall stand decided in terms of the aforesaid terms of compromise, and a compromise decree shall be drawn accordingly.

4. That, thus, the present appeal can be decided in terms of the aforesaid settlement between the parties. The other appeal filed on behalf of Kumari Shalini Singh viz. First Appeal No. 643 of 2021 has been rendered infructuous with the efflux of time. The same may accordingly be dismissed as infructuous.

5. That in view of the above it is expedient in the interest of justice that the present application be allowed accordingly and the instant appeal be decided as per the terms of the settlement given in para 3 above; else the appellant/respondent shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

6. The appellant, namely, Smt. Sandhri Singh and the respondent, namely, Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh, both are personally present in Court. The appellant Smt. Sandhri Singh has received in Court three bank drafts in original as described in paragraph 3(i) of the aforequoted joint affidavit. The aforesaid joint affidavit has also been explained by the Court to her i.e. the appellant as well as to the respondent in Court and they both accepted the aforequoted terms of the compromise before this Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this First Appeal No.59 of 2005 is disposed of in terms of the aforequoted compromise. The impugned judgment passed by the court below is accordingly modified. Accordingly the compromise decree be drawn forthwith.

Order Date :- 23.12.2022/vkg