Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Bharat Bhushan - Appellant
Versus
Ranjana Sharma - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 11 of 2018
Decided On : 14-11-2018
Domestic Violence - Mutual Divorce - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - [Section 12, Section 23] - The court discussed the settlement between the parties for mutual divorce and the payment of maintenance. The key legal provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly Section 12 and Section 23, were interpreted in the context of the settlement and influenced the court's decision to quash the previous orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition against the order affirming the maintenance payment to the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency of the petition, the parties settled for mutual divorce and agreed on the payment terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled the dispute amicably and agreed to dissolve the marriage with mutual consent, subject to the payment of a specified amount by the petitioner to the respondent.
Issues: The issues involved the maintenance payment under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the settlement for mutual divorce between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the amicable settlement reached by the parties for mutual divorce and the agreed payment terms, which led to the quashing of the previous orders.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the previous orders, affirming the maintenance payment to the respondent, as the matter was amicably settled between the parties for mutual divorce.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Present petition has been filed against the order/judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla in criminal appeal No. 6- R/10 of 2017 on 23.10.2017 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Rohru in case No. 36/3 of 2016 wherein the respondent/wife has been held to be entitled for maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month from the petitioner/husband from the date of filing of petition.
2. During pendency of present petition, learned counsel, under instructions of parties, had conveyed the possibility of amicable settlement and therefore, the matter was referred to learned Mediator for mediation. As per report of learned Mediator, on the basis of statements of parties recorded before him on 19.9.2018, the parties have settled the dispute amicably amongst them as agreed by parties in their statements recorded by learned Mediator.
3. Today parties, duly identified by their respective counsel, are present in Court and their separate statements on oath have been recorded, wherein all terms and conditions of compromise have been deposed and accepted by them.
4. Petitioner, in his statement, has stated that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized in July, 2011 as per the customs of area and Hindu rite and rituals. Due to some differences between the couple, respondent has filed a complaint under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein he has been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.3.2016. That order has been affirmed in criminal appeal preferred by him before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla.
5. He has further stated that he has assailed the impugned order/judgment by filing present petition in this Court. During the pendency of petition, matter was referred to the mediation and before learned Mediator, they have arrived at consensus to dissolve the marriage with mutual consent by filing a petition within two months, subject to payment of Rs. 10 lacs by him to the respondent before March 2021 in six monthly five equal installments of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and for which he has issued five post dated cheques, each of worth Rs. 2 lacs, bearing Nos. 927847 dated 4.12.2018, 927852 dated 4.6.2019, 9278849 dated 4.12.2019, 927850 dated 4.6.2020 and 927851 dated 4.12.2020 pertaining to his account No.9829000100022199 to be drawn at Punjab National Bank, Saraswati Nagar Sawara, Jubbal, District Shimla.
6. It is also stated by petitioner that he shall ensure the encashment of these cheques and also undertake to indemnify the respondent on failure of encashment of any of cheques for any reason by issuing fresh cheque(s) or by making payments in cash or by other means. For default in the aforesaid payments or part of payment(s), the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Rohru in case No. 36/3 of 2016 shall be revived and enforceable against him. He will also try to make entire payments well before the stipulated time and in that eventuality, he will transfer the amount in favour of respondent subject to returning of cheques of balance amount to him by the respondent.
7. In addition, as stated by petitioner, for default in encashment of cheque(s), petitioner shall also be liable for encashment under the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act besides other liabilities under any other law as applicable in the matter. He has also stated that he is making this statement out of free will and consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure and has prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise.
8. Respondent, in her statement, endorsing the deposition of petitioner, has stated that her marriage along with the petitioner was solemnized in July, 2011 but due to some differences, she has filed the complaint No. 36/3 of 2016 before learned J
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
