IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.527 of 2008 Arbind Kumar Bhagat, S/o late Pawan Kumar Bhagat, r/o- village- Sour Bazar, P.S. Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. -------- petitioner/petitioner Versus 1. Purnima Kumari, D/o Mohan Bhagat @ Hari Mohan Bhagat, r/o Vill. + P.S. – Simari Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. A mentally ill person through her father and natural guardian Mohan Prasad Bhagat. 2. Mohan Prasad Bhagat @ Hari Mohan Bhagat, S/o late Sudam Pd. Bhagat, r/o Vill. + P.S.- Simari Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. ---------Respondents/Opposite Parties ----------- 9 23.4.2009 Heard Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Mr. Parthasarthy, learned counsel for the wife- opposite party. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 18.9.2008, which reads as follows:- “Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that in spite of paying the amount of maintenance pendentelite during long protected course of this matrimonial case he would prefer that the whole dispute comes to an end if the opposite party is ready to settle this dispute out of court on acceptance of a substantial amount which would take care of her future and the future of her child.----“ By yet another order when conciliation has been undertaken by this Court for seeking personal appearance of the wife opposite party, this 2 Court had passed an order on 18.12.2008, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- ”----- Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, the petitioner himself is present and submits that he would prefer to bring all the disputes to an end for ensuring a safe future for his wife. His offer is that if all the litigations are brought to an end and he gets a reprieve from his wife, he would go to even pay a sum of Rs. 12.5 lac as a one time parting settlement. In view of the fact that the present proceedings arises out of the matrimonial case wherein the amount of maintenance for the wife-opposite party has been fixed to be Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 700/- for the minor child, this Court, taking into consideration that the two person namely the husband and wife cannot stay under the same roof and are unnecessarily litigating with each other in various courts, would definitely like that a settlement as offered by the petitioner becomes to a reality.----“ In fact the wife opposite party had appeared in person on 5.2.2009 when her consent to the offer of her husband petitioner was recorded in the following terms:- “This Court would find that the offer given by the petitioner as recorded in the last order for one time settlement is acceptable to the wife, opposite party no.1 and her father, opposite party no.2, though with some hesitation and reservation. 3 This court would, therefore expect that whatever be the terms and conditions of such settlement, that must be set out in writing and for this purpose, counsel for both the parties prayed for a period of two weeks time to file a joint petition.” The joint compromise petition thus filed by in this case on 20.2.2009 has been pressed today in presence of both the husband-petitioner and the wife-opposite party who also have no objection whatsoever recorded in the joint compromise petition. The relevant part of the terms and conditions in the aforesaid compromise petition reads as follows:- “5. That the terms of the compromise between Arvind Kumar Bhagat and Purnima Kumari are as follows:- I). The custody of the only child (daughter) Miss. Shefali born out of the wedlock of Arbind Kumar Bhagat and Purnima Kumari shall remain exclusively with the mother Purnima Kumari. Purnima Kumari agrees to permit the father Arvind Kumar Bhagat to meet Miss. Shefali in her presence at a time by mutual consent. II). The petitioner Arvind Kumar Bhagat shall pay sum of Rs. 12.5 lacs (Rs. Twelve lacs and fifty thousand) only to Purnima Kumari as a one time parting settlement. III). That out of the 12.50 lacs the opposite party no.1 Purnima Kumari will also spend for the education, 4 maintenance and upbringing etc. of their daughter Miss Shefali who will be tutored in a good Private School so that she may be well educated. IV). The aforesaid sum of Rs. 12.5 lacs shall include all amounts with respect to maintenance etc. that the petitioner Arvind Kumar Bhagat was expected to pay to his wife Purnima Kumari as also the amount for the education, maintenance and upbringing of their daughter Miss. Shefali. However, this does not include the expense that will be incurred in the marriage of Miss. Shefali. v). The petitioner Arvind Kumar Bhagat under takes to bear all reasonable expenses in the marriage of his daughter Shefali. The time of the marriage shall be decided by the mother Purnima Kumari in consultation with her family members. VI). On payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 12.5 lacs the Opposite Party no.1 Purnima Kumari undertakes to take all steps to conclude the Matrimonial case by giving her unequivocal consent to the grant of decree of divorce by the family Court as also withdraw the Complaint case no. 973/2001 pending in the court of Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. VII). That Purnima Kumari, natural mother and guardian of Shefali has consented that she will not be having any claim for her or her daughter Shefali with respect to anything hereinafter viz. 5 property, jewellery or money of the petitioner. Purnima Kumari consents on behalf of Shefali to waive any right accruing to her by way of succession. That after this Compromise and full and final settlement between the parties, Purnima Kumari and daughter Shefali will have no claim outstanding against the petitioner. VIII). That the Opposite Party will have no claim against the petitioner and any lis Civil or Criminal or the like instituted by her against the petitioner whether known or unknown, will be withdrawn by her and will give her consent, if required without any demur. IX). That the Opposite party no.1 will have no claim present, past or future regarding alimony, maintenance, support or the like against the petitioner. X). That parties undertake not to raise against each other any dispute or claim or institute any case Civil or Criminal arising or having any nexus proximate or remote to this marriage, hereinafter in any Court or Forum any wherein India. XI). That this compromise is by mutual consent and has not been obtained by force, fraud, coercion, intimidation or undue influence. XII). That the Compromise petition has not been presented in collusion between the parties.” Both the parties have in fact also 6 conveyed to this Court that they will abide by each and every terms and conditions as indicated above. In fact, in token of such assurance, counsel for the petitioner has also produced a sum of Rs. 12.5 lacs both by way of draft and cash as noted hereinbelow:- Sl. No. Bank drafts No. Amount 1. 005495 6,47,400.00 dated 20.4.09 2. 005314 3,00,000.00 dated 3.3.09 3. 005474 49,775.00 dated 6.4.09 4. 005475 49,775.00 dated 6.4.09 5. 005476 49,775.00 dated 7.4.09 6. 005477 49,775.00 dated 7.4.09 7. 005487 49,775.00 dated 13.4.09 8. 005488 49,775.00 dated 13.4.09 9. Cash 3,950.00 12,50,000.00 Such amount in presence of the counsel for the opposite party has been handed over to the opposite party-wife who seems to be satisfied with the amount of payment as per the terms. It would now be the turn of the wife to act upon the remaining terms and conditions of the compromise and to withdraw the criminal/matrimonial cases. That being so, the applications which are/would be filed by the petitioner and the opposite party, will be acted upon by the concerned courts by passing necessary order. The concern shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of total amount of Rs. 12.5 lacs, the wife should at least keep 7 half of it for fixing in the name of the minor daughter and has been suitably replied by the counsel for the opposite party by taking a plea that the welfare of the daughter is not only the concern of the father but also of the mother who from now will be the sole guardian of this minor girl. This Court would however itself like to put a note of caution for the wife-opposite party, the mother of the minor daughter, that the amount which has been given to her is for both herself and her minor daughter and therefore, nothing should be done by her which would harm the interest of her minor daughter. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this case is finally disposed of. This Court, however, must record its appreciation for the assistance extended by Mr. Alamdar Hussain, counsel for both the parties, without which the settlement in the interest of both the parties could not have been possible. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)