The Family Courts Act emphasizes facilitating settlements and allows for specific time frames and conditions regarding possession and mesne profits in family disputes.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 19th February, 2020 of the Family Court, in favour of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff/husband and against the appellant/defendant No. 1/wife, of recovery of possession of shop no. 22, on the ground floor of Archana Shopping Complex/Arcade, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 14th December, 2020, and was adjourned from time to time.

3. The appeal came up before this Bench on 12th March, 2021, when, on the counsel for the respondent no.1/decree holder/husband informing that a sum of Rs.1,35,61,277/- was due as in February, 2021, towards mesne profits, we gave an option to the counsel for the appellant/judgment debtor/wife to, if not interested in depositing the said amount in the Court, argue the appeal finally, on that date only. The counsel for the appellant wife agreed and the hearing commenced and continued on 15th March, 2021 and 7th April, 2021, when hearing was concluded and judgment was reserved.

4. Needless to state that all throughout the hearing, the dispute being between husband and wife, efforts were made to arrive at an amicable settlement. However the said efforts, till the time the judgment was reserved, did not bear any fruit. However, while reserving the judgment also, the counsels were requested to continue their efforts for amicable settlement, till the judgment was pronounced.

5. The appellant wife filed C.M. No.14984/2021, stating that she was ready and willing to handover vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the subject shop to the respondent no.1/husband, subject to the decree for mesne profits being set aside. It was also stated that the appellant wife needs about 6-7 months' time to wind up her business in the said shop.

6. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the presence of the counsel for the respondent no.1/husband was sought.

7. We may record, that the respondent no.2 Amar Preet Singh Sohal is one of the sons of the appellant and the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3 Roop Shri Sohal is the wife/ex live in partner of the said Amar Preet Singh Sohal. The respondents no. 2 and 3 have not been appearing in this appeal till now and are informed to have also not contested the proceedings from which this appeal arises.

8. We have today informed Mr. Vijay Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the appellant, that the respondent no.1 can be persuaded to the proposal aforesaid, subject to the appellant as well as her two sons namely respondent no.2 Amar Preet Singh Sohal as well as Satnam Singh Sohal furnishing undertaking to this Court, to handover vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the shop aforesaid to the respondent no.1, on or before the stipulated date. The need for the undertaking of the sons, besides that of the appellant, is felt to ensure that if the respondent no.1 is not granted mesne profits, he at least is certain that possession will be delivered on the stipulated date. The need for the undertaking of the sons is also felt, to ensure that even in the unfortunate eventuality of demise of appellant, possession of the shop is delivered to the respondent no.1.

9. Mr. Vijay Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the appellant explained that Amar Preet Singh Sohal is a resident of Dubai and Satnam Singh Sohal is a resident of U.K. and requested for pass-over, to enable the appellant as well as the said sons to join the virtual hearing.

10. On enquiry, as to who is residing with the appellant at Delhi, it is stated that Sukhmani Kaur Sohal, daughter of Amar Preet Singh Sohal is resi