Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YATINDRA SINGH,hemant GUPTA
MANJU LATA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
VINAY KUMAR DUBEY - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 990 Of 2000
Decided On : 05/23/2003
A.K.RAI CHAUDHURI, S.N.Singh
The interpretation of a compromise decree and the executability of its terms under the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly in the context of personal benefit and specific purposes.
Headnote:
Interpretation - Compromise Decree - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 - Section 24 - Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty, adultery, and fraud under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A compromise decree was passed, requiring the respondent to pay Rs. 5 lacs in two installments. The daughter died before the second installment, leading to a dispute over execution of the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was entitled to the first installment, meant for her, but the second installment, meant for the daughter's welfare, became inexecutable after the daughter's death. The appellant was not liable to return any part of the first installment to the respondent.
Issues: 1. Disentitlement of the appellant to execute the decree due to non-fulfillment of obligations. 2. Executability of the decree for the second installment. 3. Liability of the appellant to return any part of the first installment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An instrument or a compromise decree is to be read as a whole for interpretation. 2. A decree granting personal benefit for a specific purpose may be executed for that purpose only. 3. The appellant was entitled to the first installment, but the second installment became inexecutable after the daughter's death. 4. The appellant was not liable to return any part of the first installment to the respondent.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the case, holding that the appellant was entitled to the first installment, but the second installment became inexecutable after the daughter's death. The appellant was not liable to return any part of the first installment to the respondent.
( 2 ) SRI Vijai Kumar Dubey (the respondent) is an Engineer and is working with a private Company. Smt. Manju Lata Sharma (the appellant) is a Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Anwalkhera, Agra. They were married on 29-6-1990. The marriage fell apart as soon as they were married. The husband filed a divorce petition on 19-3-1991 on the ground of cruelty, adultery, and fraud under Section 13 of the hindu Marriage Act (the Act ). He further prayed for return of jewellery worth more than three lacs. The appellant filed her written statement denying plaint allegations. She also gave birth to a daughter during pendency of divorce petition on 5-5-1991. This case was ordered to proceed ex parte on 28-10-1996. The appellant filed an application to recall this order. It was dismissed on 21-11-1996 and divorce petition was decreed ex parte the same day. The relief for return of jewellery or its value in terms of money was denied.
( 3 ) THE appellant filed an appeal before this Court. There was reconciliation between the parties and a compromise application was filed. The Court passed a compromise decree on 5-12-1997 on its basis. Broadly under the compromise Rs. 5 lacs were to be given by the respondent in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 3 lacs was to be given within two months from the date of the decree and the second instalment of Rs. 2 lacs was to be given by 30th of September, 1999. In case of default it was to incur 18% interest. This amount was to be kept in the joint account of the appellant and the minor daughter with liberty to the appellant to withdraw the amount. The appellant was required to withdraw all civil and criminal cases against the husband and his family members within a week. All allegations against each other were also withdrawn and struck out.
( 4 ) THE respondent gave a draft of Rs. 3 lacs within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the daughter died on 19th of february 1998. The respondent did not give the second instalment of Rs. 2 lacs. The appellant filed an application for executing the decree on 19-12-1999. It was dismissed on 2-5-2000 on the ground that : *the daughter was dead. * The decree had become inexecutable. * The respondent was not liable to pay the second instalment of Rs. 2 lacs. Hence the present FAFO. Points For Determination
( 5 ) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh, assisted by Sri A. K. Rai, counsels for the appellant and Sri G. N. Verma, assisted by Sri chandrashekhar Agnihotri, counsels for the respondent. Following points arise for determination in the case. (I) Is the appellant disentitled to execute the decree on the ground that she has not fulfilled her part of the obligation namely to withdraw the Civil and criminal cases? (II) Who was the beneficiary under the terms of the decree; the appellant or the minor daughter? has the decree become inexecutable ? (III) Is any amount required to be paid or refunded by any of the parties? point No. 1 : The Appellant is not disentitled
( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondent brought to our notice clause No. 5 of the compromise decree and submitted that the appellant is not entitled to execute the decree on the ground that :* She was required to withdraw civil and criminal proceedings against the respondent and his family members: * She has not withdrawn the cases * She has not performed her part under the decree.
( 7 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has stated before us that: The appellant has already filed her affidavit in the proceedings. The proceedings have either been dismissed or would be dismissed if the copy of the compromise decree is filed. The respondent may get the cases dismissed after filing compromise decree. There is nothing contrary to it. In view of this, it cannot be said that the appellant has not performed her part under the decree and it does not be
