Ms. Manisha Mehra (Minor) & Anr vs Sh. Munish Mehra & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1238 Del

27.
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 1067/2009

%                                Judgment Delivered on: 23.02.2012

       MS. MANISHA MEHRA (MINOR) & ANR                          ..... Plaintiffs
                       Through : Mr.K.P. Mavi, Mr.B.P. Mishra and
                                 Ms.Soniya Singhania, Advs. along with
                                 plaintiff no.2 and brother of plaintiff no.2.
                versus

       SH. MUNISH MEHRA & ORS                        ..... Defendant
                    Through : Mr.Sunil Mund, Adv. along with
                              defendant.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 3482/2012 & I.A. 3484/2012

1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit under Section 18(2) (a) (b) (e) (g) read with Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for maintenance.

2. Plaintiff no.1 is the minor daughter of plaintiff no.2. Defendant is the father of plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2. Marriage between plaintiff no.2 and defendant was solemnized on 2.2.1998. Plaintiff no.1 was born out of the wedlock of plaintiff no.2 and defendant on 29.10.1998. On account of marital discord between plaintiff no.2 and defendant, parties have been residing separately. Plaintiff no.1 is residing with plaintiff no.2. During the pendency of the matter Rs.15,000/- was fixed as interim maintenance for the plaintiffs, which the defendant has been paying to the plaintiffs.

3. Although the suit has been filed by the plaintiff no.1 minor through her natural guardian, I find that no application was filed for appointing mother, plaintiff no.2 herein as a guardian ad idem. Counsel for the plaintiff no.2 and defendants submit that the mother does not have any interest which is adverse to the minor, thus she should be appointed as a guardian ad idem. Ordered accordingly.

4. Subsequently, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement through Mediation in Court. Consequent thereto the parties have moved present applications, one being I.A.No.3483/2012 filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, and the other being, I.A.No.3484/2012, filed under Order XXXII Rule 6 CPC. I.A.No.3484/2012 filed under Order XXXII Rule 6 CPC is duly supported by the affidavits of plaintiff no.1 and the certificate of counsel to the effect that plaintiff no.2 does not have any interest adverse to that of plaintiff no.1, who is a minor, and the settlement is for the benefit of the minor. I.A.No.3483/2012 filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which is marked as Exhibit C-1, is duly signed by plaintiff no.2 for herself and on behalf of plaintiff no.1, defendant and their respective counsel. This application is also supported by the affidavit of plaintiff no.2 and defendant. Plaintiff no.2 and defendant, who are also present in Court, are duly identified by their respective counsel. Brother of plaintiff no.2 is also present in Court. Parties identified their signatures on each page of the application and also on the affidavit. Plaintiff no.2 and defendant submit that settlement application has been made and signed out their own free will, without any pressure or coercion and after duly understanding the contents of the affidavit. Plaintiff no.2 submits that settlement is for the benefit of the minor and she does not have any adverse interest against the minor.

5. Counsel for the parties submit that present suit may be decreed in terms of

Exhibit C-1 and also the following agreed terms that:

(i) plaintiff has no objection if the defendant sells the property bearing no.E-13, Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, subject to the condition that the sale proceedings to the extent of Rs.72.50 lakhs shall be deposited in this Court.

(ii) charge upon property bearing no.E-1, Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, would stand vacated in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties today.

(iii) on payment of the agreed amount in terms of the settlement the undertakings given by the relations of defendant CS(OS)No.1044/2005 shall also stand withdrawn and vacated.

(iv) decree passed in CS(OS)No.113/2005 will also stand satisfied in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in this matter.

(v) Parties also undertake to this Court that they shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the applications. The terms of settlement are lawful. A careful perusal of the terms of the settlement would also show that the parties have settled the matter and the defendant has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.72,50,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before 04.09.2012. It has also been agreed that plaintiff no.2 shall purchase a house in the joint name of the plaintiff no.1 (minor) and the plaintiff no.2 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the payment, failing which the amount will be kept in a nationalized bank for a period not less than five years. This condition has been added in the terms of the settlement for the benefit and to protect the rights of the

minor.

7. Accordingly, present applications are allowed. Suit stands decreed in terms of Exhibit C-1 and in terms of para 4 (i) to (v) above. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. Court appreciates the efforts put in by counsel for the parties and the parties in resolving this matter amicably. Counsel prays that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement through mediation, plaintiff should be given benefit of Section 16 of Court Fee Act.

8. Accordingly, let the court fee be refunded to the plaintiff in terms of Section 16 of Court Fee Act.

9. Applications stand disposed of in view of above.

G.S.SISTANI,J FEBRUARY 23, 2012 msr