SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Del) 602

High Court Of Delhi
RAVI SINGHAL - Appellant
Versus
MANALI SINGHAL - Respondent
First Appeal Order (OS) 9 of 1999
Decided On : 07/28/2000

Advocates Appeared:
KAPIL SIBAL, Kirti Uppal, PINKY ANAND, Y.P.NARULLA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a family settlement agreement for maintenance can be enforced through a civil suit, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not bar the filing of such a suit.

Headnote:

Maintenance Agreement - Enforcement of Family Settlement - Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Section 18 and 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking enforcement of a family settlement agreement dated 4. 11. 1994, claiming maintenance and other reliefs against the defendants. The defendants opposed the suit on various grounds, including mis-joinder of parties, lack of necessary particulars, and the voidness of the agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The learned Single Judge allowed the plaintiffs' application for interim relief, fixing interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month and directing the defendants to pay arrears within two months. The defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

Issues: The issues included the validity and enforceability of the family settlement agreement, the maintainability of the suit, and the objections raised by the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit was not for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act but for the enforcement of the settlement agreement. The Court also noted that the Act is not exhaustive on the law of maintenance and does not bar the filing of such a suit. The Court took a prima facie view of the matter, considering the rights of the parties yet to be adjudicated upon during the full trial.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiffs' application for interim relief and dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Devinder Gupta

( 1 ) THE defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal against the order passed on 20. 10. 1998 by learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of three applications (A. 1126/97,1. A. 2634 and I. A. 2635 of 1998) in pending suit (S. No. 2358 of 1997 ).

( 2 ) APPELLANT No. 1 is the son of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who respectively are the father and the mother of appellant No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of appellant No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is his daughter. On 28. 10. 1. 19097 the plaintiffs/ respondents filed a suit against the defendants/appellants claiming the following reliefs:

" (A) adecree against the defendant for payment of Rs. 9,60,000/-on account of arrears of maintenance, vacation expenses and school fees along with interest @ 22% per annum from due dates till payment; (b) a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally directing the defendants to specifically perform the said agreement dated 4. 11. 1994 marked Annexure-A annexed hereto together with interest @ 22% p. a. ; (c) a decree for rendition of accounts against the defendants in respect of the shares, securities, deposits, dividends and income of the plaintiff in , partnership companies, HUFs which the defendants are managing and/or controlling and other companies and partnerships including those detailed in Schedule-II; (d) a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally directing the defendants to disclose the details of the properties of the plaintiffs including their shares, securities, deposits and also dividends and income accrued therefrom and render to the plaintiffs true and faithful account of the same and disclose the names of HUFs in which the defendants and / or their families are a part of any larger HUF of which they are coparceners; (e) a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally directing the defendants to return to the plaintiffs all her movables including papers belonging to the plaintiffs and in possession and under the control of the defendants including the items detailed in Schedule I; (f) to direct the defendants to hand over all shares, securities, deposits, fixed deposits, receipts, income tax and wealth tax returns and assessment orders from 10. 2. 1989 till date and any other property that the plaintiffs are entitled to out of the marriage, etc. , standing in the name of the plaintiffs, to the plaintiffs, and to pay to the plaintiffs all dividends, incomes, interests and amounts due and payable on rendition of account together with interest at the rate of 22% per annum from their due dates till payment; (g) the defendants may be ordered jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiffs the cost of the suit; (h) to grant such further and other reliefs as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

( 3 ) THE application (I. A. 11261/97) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs praying that during pendency of the suit the following interim reliefs be granted to them against the defendants:

" (A) to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- the arrears of maintenance towards due from January till October, 1997 vacation expenses, school and medical expenses together with interest @ 22% per annum; (b) to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month from 1. 10. 1997 with an escalation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- every 2 years; (c) to promptly and diligently pay the school fees of plaintiff No. 2 every quarter and the medical expenses of the plaintiffs; (d) to provide a residential house to be chosen by plaintiff No. 1 comparable with the living standards of the plaintiffs enjoyed by them at their matrimonial home at 24, Olof Palme Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in South Delhi consisting of a drawing room, dining room, 3 bed rooms, a servant quarter and a garage to the plaintiffs and direct the defendants to bear the monthly house maintenance and r



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top