IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1062 of 2008 VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus MRS.ANSU PRABHA ----------- 7. 10.12.2008 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhurb Narayan, learned counsel for the opposite party. Both of them agree at least on this proposition that the order of the court below directing to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in addition to the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was not the subject matter of the case, inasmuch as no application was filed to this effect by the wife opposite party claiming additional compensation or by way of permanent alimony. It is also not denied that the terms and conditions for mutual divorce were agreed upon and it was resolved by both of them without any pressure, threat and coercion that the wife will agree for a divorce provided she was paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs. It is again not in dispute that deposit of Rs. 5 lacs was already complete in the manner prescribed in the agreement. In such a situation this Court fails to find out any reason as to how and 2 why the court below had gone to impose a condition which was not part and parcel of the agreement for mutual divorce. True it may be that the court had taken into account of long suffering of the wife opposite party and a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of additional compensation was on that head but then concept of section 25 of the Hindu Marriages Act cannot be extended in favour of a person who has not even claimed it at least before the court below in the proceedings from the stage when a compromise petition was filed. The agreement envisaging mutual divorce only quantified the amount of Rs. 5 lacs to be paid by the husband petitioner to the wife opposite party and therefore, if that agreement was sought to be acted upon by the court below it had to truly and strictly act within the four corners of that agreement. That being so, this Court would set aside that part of the impugned order whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in addition to Rs. 5 lacs have been directed to be paid. In other words, the liability of the husband petitioner would be only to pay 3 a sum of Rs. 5 lacs. Mr. Dwivedi informs this Court that Rs. 5 lacs have already been paid to the Punch who had kept the same in Pass-book. It was the duty of the petitioner to ensure that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs is transferred in the account of the wife opposite party by a Bank draft. Mr. Dwivedi in fact refers to the terms and conditions of the agreement to contend that since the parties had agreed that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs will be deposited in the name of the Punch in the Bank, the petitioner as well as the said Punch Deo Narayan Choudhary and Bindeshwari Bhagat are directed to pay the said amount by a Bank draft in the name of the wife opposite party alongwith interest which has accrued in the Bank account No. SB 25824 in the Bank of India, Saharsa Branch, within a week of the receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The moment such a Bank draft is produced before the court below, the rest of the order in terms of the agreement for mutual divorce will become effective. 4 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/