F.A.O. No.M-56 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No.M-56 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.2.2010 Sanjeev ....Appellant Versus Smt. Mamta ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The challenge in the present appeal is to the ex-parte decree of divorce granted by learned Court below to the respondent-wife on October 23, 2008. It is a case in which the appellant had initially appeared and filed written statement. However, lateron did not join the proceedings and Court had ultimately decided the case ex-parte. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute between the parties had been settled and the settlement was reduced into writing on September 10, 2006 in terms of which the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- and had also returned all the dowry articles. It was agreed between the parties that they will not initiate any proceedings against each other. Inspite of that a divorce petition was filed on November 18, 2006 and vide judgment dated October 23, 2008, the learned Court below granted further amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent as permanent alimony which could not be granted as the amount settled between the parties had already been paid. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submission made. It is a case in which the appellant had knowledge about the filing of divorce petition by the respondent as he initially appeared and even filed his written statement. Subsequently the appellant failed to put in appearance in the Court. However, still learned Court below considering F.A.O. No.M-56 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the documents singed by the parties regarding settlement of the dispute and finding that the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- had been paid by the appellant to the respondent was infact on account of expenses incurred in the marriage, directed another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent as permanent alimony. The amount was fixed considering the status of the appellant who was getting carry home salary of Rs. 7,141/- per month being Haryana Government Employee. It was further directed that till such time the appellant pays the lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- he shall continue to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,400/- per month. The aforesaid order in my opinion does not call for any interference as already the Court had considered the stand of the parties and even the settlement arrived at between the parties earlier, in terms of which only the expenses on marriage had been reimbursed by the appellant and nothing was mentioned regarding permanent alimony. As regards settlement regarding non-initiating of any proceedings against each other suffice to say that the marriage between the parties could not possibly be dissolved by merely writing the documents, for that proceedings had to be initiated in the Court. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 8.2.2010 JUDGE Reema