Rahul Sharma vs Smt. Vandana Sharma

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2024

¶3

Rahul Sharma

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Smt. Vandana Sharma	Versus		..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Vinod : Kapil Dubey	Kumar Muni	Pandey Dubey,	Dhirendra Kr.

¶6

Court No. - 5

¶7

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned counsel for respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶9

This first appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No. 1116 of 2018 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Vandana Sharma).

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that this matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court,Lucknow vide order dated 05.01.2026 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 06.02.2026. Copy of the same is available on record along with the report of mediator. As per the settlement agreement dated 06.02.2026 executed in Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court,Lucknow, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other, therefore the impugned order passed in aforesaid case may be quashed in view of the settlement agreement dated 06.02.2026.

¶11

The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:-

¶12

FAPL No. 170 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

"6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

¶15

A. That both eh parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and to live separately in future. For the purpose of dissolution of their marriage the parties have filed a joint Misc. Case No. 05/2026 U/S 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya on 03.02.2026. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the concerned Family Court on the date(s) fixed and would make their earnest efforts to obtain a decree of divorce i terms of this settlement agreement at the earliest.

¶16

B. That the First Party agreed to pay to the Second Party and the Second Party agreed to receive from the First Party a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of the Second Party against the First Party including the claim for permanent alimony. Accordingly the First Party has handed over a Demand Draft No. 119874 dated 31.01.2026 amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Baroda to the Second Party today i.e. 06.02.2026. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the said Demand Draft.

¶17

C. That the parties have agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/(Rupees Four Lakh) shall be paid by the First Party to the Second Party at the time of the second motion of Misc. Case No. 05 of 2026 U/S 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act filed before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya.

¶18

D. That the parties have agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the cases filed against each others and against their family members and get the same decided in terms of this settlement agreement. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder:-

¶19

(I) Criminal Case No. 30 of 2024 (State Vs. Rahul Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0068 of 2018 U/Ss 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Faizabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) / F.T.C. (W), Ayodhya.

¶20

FAPL No. 170 of 2024

¶21

3

¶22

(II) Criminal Case No. 212 of 2019 (Vandana Sharma Vs. Rahul Sharma and others) U/S 12 of D.P. Act, P.S. - Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) / F.T.C. (W), Ayodhya.

¶23

(III) Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 11 of 2024 (Rahul Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others) against the judgment / order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad pending before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow.

¶24

(IV) Complaint Case No. 239 of 2024 U/S 494, 496, 323, 504, 506 IPC pending before Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Ayodhya.

¶25

(V) Case Crime No. 576 of 2024 U/S 115(2), 352, 351 (3) B.N.S. Thana Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya.

¶26

(VI) Case No. 10 of 2024 U/S 125(3) Cr.P.C. pending before Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya.

¶27

(VII) Case No. 1116 of 2018 U/S 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Vandana Sharma) disposed of by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya.

¶28

E. That parties have agreed that they shall have no objection if the FIRST APPEAL No. 170 of 2024 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Smt. Vandana Sharma) is decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this settlement Agreement.

¶29

F. That the parties have agreed that in addition to above mentioned cases, if any other case(s) is pending between the parteis, both the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement.

¶30

G. That both the parties have agreed that they shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. The Second Party has agreed that in case she fails to cooperate in the divorce proceedings and in disposal of pending cases filed by her against the First Party and his family members, she will return to the First Party the entire amount received by her from the First Party along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of receipt of the amount from the First Party.

¶31

H. That the First Party has agreed in case he fails to attend and cooperate in the divorce case, the amount received by the Second Party

¶32

FAPL No. 170 of 2024

¶33

4

¶34

from the First Party shall not be returned by the Second Party to the First Party and the Second Party will be at liberty to reopen all her cases decided by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement by moving an appropriate application before competent Court / Forum.

¶35

7. By signing this agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to the matter involved in FIRST APPEAL No. 170 of 2024 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Smt. Vandana Sharma) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

¶36

Learned counsel for opposite party could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶37

Accordingly, in light of the fact that the settlement agreement has arrived at between the appellant and the respondent therefore the impugned the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No. 1116 of 2018 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Vandana Sharma) is hereby quashed.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations / directions, the present first appeal stands allowed .

¶39

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶40

April 8, 2026

¶41

Ravi/

¶42

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Sharma v. Smt. Vandana Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

Rahul Sharma v. Smt. Vandana Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi and 4 Others vs Usha Verma and Another

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 4 Others vs No. 670090-S Mwo (Hfo) Arun Pal Singh (Retd.)

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence (Iaf) New Delhi and 3 Others vs 676094 H Mwo Ravindra Singh (Retd.)

Munni Devi vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 5 Others

Prof. (Dr.) Mayashankar vs the Chancellor Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University Prayagraj and 7 Others

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Territory Manager, Retail Territory, Gonda vs Anoop Kumar Modi