Agreement entered into with a condition that a particular event may be performed in future becomes redundant if the said event had already been performed.

1. The revision is laid by the husband of the first respondent challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Jude, Cyberabad. The first respondent, who shall be referred to hereinafter as the wife, filed Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.4 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad against the petitioner herein (the husband, for short) and the parents of the husband. The wife laid the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) read with Rule 6 (1) of the Rules seeking for a protection order and compensation. The trial Judge partly allowed the DVC No.4 of 2009. The husband and the father of the husband, who is the second respondent herein, were directed to pay Rs.8 lakhs to the first respondent herein (wife) along with interest at 12% per annum from 11.05.2007. Compensation at Rs.5 lakhs was awarded, which is payable by the husband within two months from the date of the order.

2. The husband preferred Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad questioning the orders in DVC No.4 of 2009. The parents of the husband in their turn filed Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2013. A common judgment was pronounced by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad dismissing both the criminal appeals. The orders in DVC No.4 of 2009 stood confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the present revision. Be it noted that the parents of the husband did not prefer any revision.

3. The marriage between the main parties was solemnized on 27.08.2005. On the date of marriage itself, the wife had to leave for United States of America (USA) where she was working and the visa and Green Card regulations required her presence in USA. The husband subsequently joined the wife at USA. The wife and husband had serious differences and failed to see eye-to-eye with each other. The wife complained that the husband was harassing her demanding additional dowry to a tune of Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs. It is also alleged that the wife was physically harassed by the husband in USA such as keeping her inside the house and bolting the door from outside. The wife claimed that she reported the matter to the Department of Public Safety in West Virginia University. The father of the wife also lodged a complaint in Saroornagar Police Station, Hyderabad, India on behalf of his daughter, which was registered as Crime No.1098 of 2006.

4. It is the case of the wife that the wife had no alternative but to seek for divorce. The wife filed a petition on 08.07.2006 in the Family Court, Monongalia County West Virginia University and obtained orders for divorce on 12.03.2007. Inter alia, the wife contends that she reserved her right to claim maintenance and distribution of assets. It is also the claim of the wife that the father of the husband later entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU, for short) with the father of the wife on 11.05.2007 agreeing to pay Rs.8 lakhs, in case the wife consents for divorce and that the amount of Rs.8 lakhs was already deposited before the mediators. The wife complained that the husband and the father of the husband failed to honour their commitment in terms of MoU. Other allegations were also made which are not germane for the purpose of the present case.

5. The husband denied all the allegations of the wife including demanding for additional dowry at Rs.30 lakhs and receipt of Rs.5,25,000/- from the wife and his in-laws. The parents of the husband contended that the father of the wife forced the father of the husband to enter into an MoU, albeit the wife had already obtained divorce even by the date of MoU. They claimed that they never made any demands for dowry and contended that MoU is unenforceable.

6. The wife examined herself as PW.1 and examined her mother as P