I 't' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(MI 063/2009 Date of Decision: 5th May, 2010 RAJINDERPARSHAD TI WART Petitioner ThrOugh: Mr. Ajay Kurnar, Adv. with Petitioner in person versus SMT. CHANDRA PRABHA ...,. Respoident Through: Mr. Sumit Ahuja, Adv. WithRespondent in person. % COR&M:, HON'BLEMS.JUSTICEARUNA SURESH Whether reporters of local paper may be alloied to see the judgment? : To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported 'j in the Digest? JUDGMENT ARUNA SIJRESH, J. (Oral) 1. -, • Parties to ihe petition were married in 1983. Three children; one son and two daughters; were born out of their wedlock. However, parties could not continue io live together and separated on 28th August, 1993: They filed petitions under Section 13(b) (1) and 13(b) (2) ofthe Hindu Marriage Act CM(M) No.1063/2009 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified (hereinafter referred to as 'H.M. Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Vide common order dated 26.03.2002, Trial Court allowed both the petition by waiving six months statutory period required to be observed for filing petition Section 13 (b) (2) of the H.M. Act after the presentation' of the first .petition under Section 13 (b) (1) of the H.M. Act. Parties had settled their disputes in terms contained in para 5 k to 7 of the petition filed under Section 13 (h) (2) Of the H.M. Act. Trial Court recorded joint statement of the parties and thereafter passed a decree for divorce on 26.03.2002. In the said order it was noted that the parties shall be bound by their statements and undertakings. However, it was also observed that any term of the Agreement entered into between the parties was against the State, would not be enforceable. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act on 2 1.01.2009 i.e. after about seven years of the divorce against the Respondent, alleging that he was ready and willing to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as agreed to the Respondent CM(M) No.1063/2009 Page 2 of 6 0 to vacate the premises in her occupation, which she failed to vacate. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2009. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, Petitioner also filed an execution petition which was also dismissed vide order of the even date. 4. Impugned in this petition are the said two order of the Trial Court. 1-' 5. Trial Court, while dismissing the Contempt Petition, reproduced para 5 of th petition under Section 13 (B) (2) of H.M. Act. Petitioner had areed to provide one room, bath, latrine along with kitchen in property No. D-24, Cottage Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi to the Respondent: and also gave her right to live and enjoy the said property during her life time. However, an alternative arrangement was made, in case Petitioner paid Rs.5,00,000I- to the Respondent, she would,. hand over vacant possession of, the said portion to the Petitioner. 6. Petitioner, after getting decree for divorce •did not offer Rs.5,00,000/- to the Respondent for about seven years. In CM(M) No.1063/2 009 Page 3 of 6 between, value of the property increased tremendously. It was after about seven years that Petitioner thought of getting back the property by offering Rs.5,00,000/- to the Respondent. True that, as per the settlement, no time for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was fixed. The fact remains, Petitioner was not entitled to have arbitrary discretion to offer Rs.5,00,000I- to the Respondent according to his own whims and fancies. In the absence of any 'specific clause reasonable interpretation has to be given to the contract. Over a period of 1' seven years, Respondent continued to live in and enjoy the said property having settled possession of the same because Petitioner never came forward to take back the property, on payment of Rs.5,00,000-. Of course, some reasonable time was required by the Petitioner to offer Rs.5,00,000/-. This reasonable period with no stretch of imagination could be extended to seven.years. 7. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly held that IM N no Contempt of Court was committed by the Respondent. Today value of the portion in possession of the Respondent is abOut Rs. 40,00,000/-. Petitioner is not agreeable to pay CM(M) No.1063/2009 Page 4 of 6 L Rs.40,00,000/- to the Respondent to get back the property. Though, the parties failed to state the period during which Petitioner was required to offer Rs.5,00,000/- in their compromise, Petitioner could not be allowed to stretch this period till life of either of the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner Submitted that his son who is living with the Respondent has also filed a suit against him and is litigating with him in respect of the other portion of the property. As per the settlement arrived at between the parties, Petitioner was the guardian of his children and they were in his custody. Therefore, any litigation between him and his Son is of no consequence and is not relevant for just decision of this petition. Trial Court rightly dismissed the execution petition as decree for divorce was passed on mutual consent and since after the decree for divorce, parties are living separately. Terms and conditions of the settlement were never made a part of the decree and therefore terms contained in the petition under CM(M) No.1063/2009 Page 5 of 6 Section 13 (b) (2) of H.M. Act were not enforceable by way of execution 10. Hence, I find no merits in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAYO5,2010 vk *1 CM(M) No.1063/2009 - Page 6 of 6