$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16.12.2024 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 428/2024, CM APPL. 73681/2024-Delay 208 days POOJA SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Rahul Bhaskar and Ms. Tanya Bhutani, Advs. versus ARUN SHARMA ....Respondent Through: Ms. Seema Seth, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) CM APPL. 73680/2024-Exp

1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 428/2024, CM APPL. 73681/2024-Delay 208 days

3. The present appeal preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeks to assail the order dated 15.04.2024 [“impugned order”] passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in HMA No. 829/2018.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court has rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu MAT.APP.(F.C.) 428/2024 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Marriage Act, 1955 [“HMA”] seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings in the petition preferred by the respondent-husband. The learned Family Court has held that the appellant having earlier entered into a settlement with the respondent, she could not have retracted from the same and consequently her application seeking maintenance was not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Family Court, despite noticing the fact that the said settlement entered into between the parties was not given effect, has rejected the application for maintenance by binding the appellant to the terms of the settlement which were admittedly never given effect. She also submits that this view is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajat Gupta vs. Rupali Gupta, 2018 SCC Online Del 9005.

6. Issue Notice. Ms. Seema Seth, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and is not in a position to deny that the settlement referred to in the impugned order was never implemented. She, however, submits, since the statements of the parties in terms of the settlement were recorded, the learned Family Court was justified in holding that she would remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may begin by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned judgment which read as under:-

“27. Thus, it can be seen that respondent chose three different reason at three different time period to back out of the terms of the settlement. Once she had settled her dispute and crystallized her all claims and bound herself to the terms of the settlement, she is not within her right MAT.APP.(F.C.) 428/2024 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed to back out of the terms of the settlement and agitate her right over and above the terms of the settlement. After backing out of the terms of the settlement she could not relegate herself to the position where she was prior to settlement. Promise made to the court has got to be respected and honoured and those who betrays court will not find any sympathy from the court. Accordingly, respondent's application under Section 24 of HMA remained no longer maintainable after the settlement having arrived at between the parties on 01.12.2012 as noted above.

28. The contention that maintenance 1s a statutory right and therefore, there cannot be a contract against it, was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh v. Sudhir Kumar Srivastav & Ors bearing Civil Appeal No. 4031-4032 of 2019 holding that wife could give up her claim for the stridhan, alimony or maintenance. Earlier such a contract was deemed against public policy but having peace in the society is also in public interest. Majority of the litigations for divorce are lingering as parties are unable to settle financial issues qua maintenance etc.