The breach of a settlement agreement, such as the MOU dated 27.7.2007, does not revive the original cause of action, and the plaintiff's legal rights are limited to enforcing the terms of the settlement with additional and further reliefs.

VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.

I.P.A. No. 1/2016 & I.A.No. 1642/2016(u/O XXXIII Rules 1(A), 2 & 3 CPC), I.A.No. 1643/2016 (u/S 18, 19 & 20 of the PWDV Act) & I.A.No. 1645/2016(u/S 151 CPC)

1. This suit, as a pauper case under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the plaintiff/wife Smt. Anamika Khurana against the defendant/husband Sh. Rajiv Khurana seeking maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relief clauses of the plaint read as under:-

“(a) Pass a decree directing the defendant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.Three lacs per month as maintenance and also to provide a separate residence duly furnished for the plaintiff along with all the other amenities such as car, driver, petrol etc. from the date of filing of the present suit till the passing of the decree.

(b) grant 10 per cent escalation after every 3 years along with suitable residence while passing the decree in consonance with the lifestyle and amenities enjoyed by the defendant.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit & proper may also be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

(d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. When this suit came up for admission for the first time on 4.2.2016, the following order was passed by this Court as the suit framed prima facie showed the lack of cause of action as per the facts pleaded:-

“I.A. No.1644/2016 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

I.A. stands disposed of.

+ I.P.A. No.1/2016 and I.A. Nos.1642/2016 (under Order 33 Rules 1(A), 2 and 3) & 1643/2016 (under Sections, 18,19 and 20 of DV Act)

2. Prima facie I find that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the admitted facts inasmuch as there was an admitted MOU dated 27.7.2007 between the plaintiff-wife and the defendant-husband. Once there is a written document being MOU specifying the rights given to the plaintiff-wife with respect to maintenance amounts; including a fixed amount given as also rights in an immovable property; then rights towards maintenance which are claimed by the plaintiff-wife from the husband/defendant have necessarily to be by enforcing the MOU dated 27.7.2007 and not by claiming rights dehors the MOU dated 27.7.2007 and which document finally crystallized the rights of the plaintiff-wife

3. Also this petition is filed as an indigent person i.e without paying Court fee, and there is no averment made nor an affidavit filed that plaintiff does not have any other bank accounts or has not had any other bank account at least since the last one year except the bank account which is filed at pages 91 and 92 of the documents file. It bears note that as per the MOU dated 27.7.2007 plaintiff received a lumpsum amount of Rs.25 lacs and plaintiff has stated that such amount was pledged by the plaintiff with respect to education of the son of the parties and therefore affidavit is also required as to whether such an amount exists as of today or does not or and if so to what extent.

4. It has to be further examined that if the amount is given as a lumpsum amount both towards maintenance for the plaintiff as also the son of the parties, whether the plaintiff would at all have a right in addition to the amount given as lumpsum of Rs.25 lacs both for the plaintiff as also the son in terms of the MOU dated 27.7.2007.

5. The aforesaid are prima facie observations with respect to maintainability of the suit.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner wants to examine the issues and also file an affidavit in terms of the present order.

7. List on 18th March, 2016.” (underlining added)

3. On the aspect of her pauper ship, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit alongwith the documents with respect to the monies in various bank accounts available to her, and though certain views are possible on the same as