Jasmine Kaur Chandhok vs Jaspal Singh Chandhiok & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7545 Del

                                                                                #23
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CONT.CAS(C) 52/2013

       JASMINE KAUR CHANDHOK     ..... Petitioner
                    Through Ms. Aakriti Dawar with Ms. Ankita
                            Gupta, Advocates

                           versus

       JASPAL SINGH CHANDHIOK & ANR. ..... Respondents
                     Through Ms. Manindra Acharya, Sr. Advocate
                             and Amicus Curiae with Mr. Yashaswi
                             S.K. Choksey, Advocate.
                             Mr. B. Shankar K. Jha, Advocate for
                             R-1.
                             Mr. Rajesh Raina, Advocate for R-2.

%                                   Date of Decision: 22nd December, 2016

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                           JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 29th September, 2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in Suit No. 64/2011. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Matter received from the Mediation Cell as settled.

It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the matter has been

amicably settled with the defendants in the Mediation Cell vide order dated 24.09.2011. As per the statement, he will withdraw the case after the period of 1 year after looking at the behaviour of the defendant and he shall bound by the settlement arrived at the Mediation Cell no. 24.09.2011.

It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and 2 that they will bound by their statement arrived at the Mediation Cell on 24.09.2011.

Separate statement of the parties is recorded.

Now to come up for further proceedings on 18.01.2012."

2. The relevant portion of the settlement agreement executed before the Mediation Centre on 24th September, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"2.It is also agreed between the parties that Smt. Jasmine Kaur will live with his husband Sh. Jaspal Singh at the above- mentioned matrimonial residence. Sh. Jaspal Singh Chandhok has agreed that he will give due respect, love and affection to his wife Smt. Jasmine Kaur and son and he will look after all the daily needs of his wife as well as son Bhavya, aged about 10 years and he will bear all the house hold expenses educational expenses, medical expenses of the wife as well as son including tuition fee of son Bhavya, day to day expenses, clothing etc. Apart from meeting these expenses, he will be giving a separate sum of Rs.5000/- as pocket money to his wife to meet out her personal needs. It is further agreed between the parties that if Sh. Jaspal Singh is not able to give maintenance as mentioned above then Sh. Sh. Surinder Singh is responsible for giving maintenance to Smt. Jasmine Kaur."

3. On 5th December, 2016, the petitioner had stated that the minor son Master Bavya wants to enrol for FIITJEE or similar tuition classes in the month of April 2017 as he wishes to appear in the entrance examinations for engineering colleges. Consequently, she had prayed that the respondents be asked to pay the fees of FIITJEE or similar tuition classes, for a two year period.

4. As respondents were not agreeable to the same, this Court had requested Ms. Manindra Acharya, Senior Advocate to act as a Mediator in the present case. However, efforts to amicably resolve the matter were not successful. Consequently, this Court has no other option but to proceed ahead with the matter. However, this Court places on record it appreciation for the services and efforts rendered by Ms. Acharya.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently states that respondents do not have enough resources to pay for the FIITJEE/similar tuition classes. He states that while the income of respondent no. 1 is only Rs. 16,000/- per month, the income of respondent no. 2 is only about Rs. 34,000/- per month. He also states that settlement dated 24th September, 2011 was valid for a period of one year. In support of his contention, he relies upon Clauses 4 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement dated 24 th September, 2011 which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4.Sh. Surinder Singh has agreed that he will not press upon his present case pending in the Court of Sh. Arun Goel, CJ, THC, Delhi for a year and after looking at the behaviour of both Sh. Jaspal Singh and Smt. Jasmine Kaur, he will withdraw the same from the concerned court.

5.Smt. Jasmine Kaur has also agreed that she will not press her present complaint case bearing no. 79/1 for a year and she will withdraw the same after looking at the assured behaviour of her husband Sh. Jaspal Singh. Smt. Jasmine Kaur will also not press upon her complaint pending before the CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar. She will also not press upon a complaint filed by her pending in Court No. 116, listed for 10th October, 2011 against her husband and parents-in-law."

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner states that respondents are not stating true and correct facts. She points out that

respondents live on a floor in a property ad measuring 1000 sq. yrds. in Kirti Nagar. She also states that respondent no. 2 has two shops which have been rented out to three tenants. She further states that both respondents trade in spare parts on the side.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the respondents denies the allegations that the respondents have additional income from trading in spare parts.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that under the settlement agreement, the respondents i.e. husband and father-in-law of the petitioner had undertaken to look after all the daily needs of petitioner as well as her son Master Bavya and had agreed to bear all household expenses, educational expenses, medical expenses including tuition fee of son Master Bavya.

9. The twin use of the expressions 'educational expenses' as well as 'tuition fee', leaves this Court in no doubt that the respondents had agreed to pay not just the school fees but also any additional tuition fee that would be required for the education of the minor son Master Bavya. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a child who wants to sit in a competitive examination has to necessarily join tuition / coaching classes.

10. Upon reading of the Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2011, this Court is also of the opinion that the liability to pay education expenses as well as tuition fees was not limited for a period of one year. Both petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 were given the option in the event they were satisfied with each other's conduct to withdraw the proceedings filed by them after a period of one year. But the withdrawal or non-withdrawal of the proceedings did not limit the life of the Settlement Agreement.

11. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondents are obliged under the settlement agreement executed before the Mediation Centre as well as by the order dated 29th September, 2011 to pay for the minor son's fees for FIITJEE/similar tuition classes in addition to the tuition fee already being paid by the respondents.

12. This Court has also seen the demeanour and life style of the respondents and is of the opinion that they are certainly not 'paupers. Coupled with the fact that the respondents stay in a floor admeasuring 1000 sq. yards in Kirti Nagar, this Court is of the view that respondents are both legally bound as well as capable of paying for the educational expenses of the minor son Master Bavya.

13. In the event, the respondents do not pay the admission fee as well as other regular fee óf FIITJEE / similar tuition classes for a period of two years, they shall be guilty of contempt.

14. List for further consideration on 19th April, 2017.

15. Respondents are directed to be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.

MANMOHAN, J DECEMBER 22, 2016 rn