Allowed

Mukesh v. Sanjeev Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013FAO/3732/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal as not pressed. The parties had agreed to settle their dispute: the husband paid ₹3,50,000 as permanent alimony, the female child remained in his custody, and the wife withdrew related criminal appeals. The divorce decree attaineds finality.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed on merits. The order registered the parties’ agreement for permanent alimony, child custody, and withdrawal of criminal proceedings.

Mukesh Vs Sanjeev Kumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

FAO No. 3732 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 3732 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 23.05.2013

Smt. Mukesh

..... Appellant

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶15

On the basis of concerted efforts made by their learned counsel, the parties agreed to resolve their unfortunate matrimonial dispute in the following terms as were recorded in our order dated 13.3.2013:-

¶16

(i) The respondent-husband has agreed to pay a lump-sum amount of ` 3,50,000/- to the appellant-wife as permanent alimony towards full and final settlement. On receipt of the said amount, the appellant shall have no claim whatsoever against the respondent.

¶17

(ii) The female child shall continue to remain in the

¶18

FAO No. 3732 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

custody of respondent-husband and he shall not claim any maintenance from the appellant for the said child. In other words, it shall be the sole responsibility of the husband to properly look after and maintain the child.

¶21

(iii) The appellant-wife also agrees that it is for the interest and welfare of the child that she now continues to remain in the custody of respondent-husband.

¶22

(iv) The petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the parents of the respondent against the appellant and respondent shall be withdrawn within two weeks. Similarly, the appellant-wife shall withdraw the Criminal Appeal/Revision filed by her against acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 IPC. She shall not institute any other criminal or civil case against the respondent or his family members in relation to their matrimonial dispute.

¶23

With a view to honour condition No. 1, the respondenthusband has handed over a demand draft of ` 3,50,000/- to the counsel for appellant-wife towards full and final payment including the permanent alimony. Henceforth, the respondent shall have no claim whatsoever against the respondent-husband or his family members. Regarding condition No. (ii), the parties have agreed that the female child born out of the wedlock shall remain in the custody of respondenthusband.

¶24

FAO No. 3732 of 2011 -3-

¶25

For condition No. (iv) it is stated by counsel for the respondent-husband that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by his mother and she is reluctant to withdraw the same. Keeping in view the fact that the child is not in the custody of the mother of the respondent-husband, which shall be taken as a correct statement of fact, the Court concerned shall consider its direct bearing on the maintenance claim filed by the mother of the respondent. If the Court passes an order adverse to the appellant-wife, we grant her liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶26

The respondent-husband or his family members shall not be entitled nor they shall claim any arrears/outstanding amount towards the maintenance of the child from the appellant-wife.

¶27

The appellant-wife has already withdrawn the Criminal Appeal/Revision filed against the respondent-husband in a criminal case of acquittal under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

In view of these developments, learned counsel for the appellant-wife does not want to press this appeal on merits so that the decree of divorce between the parties attains finality.

¶29

Dismissed as not pressed, however, subject to the terms and conditions noticed above which the parties shall abide.

¶30

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE May 23, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Mukesh v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab &Ors.

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pawandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jarnail Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hasan Khan Vs Union of India & Ors.