REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 450
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S).1008 OF 2023
TRISHA SINGH .…PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
ANURAG KUMAR ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The instant transfer petition came to be preferred by the
petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by the
respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 being Matrimonial Case No. 2172/2022 titled as ‘Anurag
Kumar S/o Ravindra Nath Sharma Vs. Trisha Singh’, pending
before the Court of 7-Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, U.P.
to the Family Court at Pune, Maharashtra.
2. The transfer petition was dismissed for want of prosecution
th st
on 26 July, 2023. Subsequently, vide order dated 21 August,
2023, the transfer petition was restored to its original number and
on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.05.22
16:47:26 IST
Reason:
forwarded to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring
1
the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Pursuant to the efforts made by the Mediator, the parties had
arrived at a settlement which was signed by the petitioner-wife and
the respondent-husband before Shrabani Chakrabarty,
th
Advocate/Mediator, Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 26
February, 2024. The relevant terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement which in entirety shall form a part of this
order are reproduced below: -
“5. Both the parties hereto have arrived at an amicable
settlement on the following terms and conditions for dissolution
of marriage by mutual consent: -
A. That the respondent husband continued to pay certain
expenses voluntary to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees
twenty lakh only) from March 2020 upto October 2023 for
his child to the bank account of the petitioner-wife including
the period the parties were not together. Mediation took
place at great length between the parties and parties want
to part away taking divorce. The respondent- husband has
agreed to pay full and final alimony of Rs.1 Crore 15 lakh
(one crore and Fifteen lakhs only) to the petitioner-wife. The
respondent husband has paid an amount of Rs.50 lakh to
the petitioner wife on 22.02.2024. The remaining alimony
will be paid will be as under:
(i) Rs.50 Lakh (rupees fifty lakh) only shall be paid
to the petitioner-wife on or before 31.08.2024;
(ii) The remaining alimony of Rs. 15 lakh (rupees
fifteen lakh) only will be paid on or before 31.12.2024.
(iii) The gold and jewelries belonging to the petitioner-
wife kept in a locker at Bank of India of Varanasi shall
be taken by the petitioner within 14th to 20th March
2024. Petitioner will also collect silver items given on
marriage from the respondent- husband.”
2
3. It is thus manifest that there was a clear undertaking by the
parties before the Mediator that they shall part ways peacefully.
4. It is also clear that the respondent-husband had voluntarily
paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for the support of his child during the
period from March, 2020 to October, 2023. The respondent-
husband also paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the petitioner-wife in
the terms of the settlement. The remaining amount of permanent
alimony has been agreed to be paid as per the schedule indicated
in the settlement deed. Out of this agreed amount, the respondent-
husband has paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-(fifty lacs) only to the
petitioner-wife.
5. However, today when the matter was taken up, this Court
was apprised that the petitioner-wife seems to have resiled from
the settlement agreement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has affirmed that his
client has stopped instructing him in the matter. Acting on the
terms of the settlement, the respondent-husband has already
rd
withdrawn the matrimonial case on 23 April, 2024 which fact is
recorded in the order sheet of the Family Court placed on record
with I.A. No. 112620 of 2024 and thus he is abiding by the terms
of settlement in letter and spirit.
3
7. It seems, the petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the
settlement executed before the Mediator has managed to get the
matrimonial case instituted by the respondent-husband
withdrawn. She has also accepted a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the
respondent-husband towards part payment of the permanent
alimony and thereafter, she is trying to resile from the settlement
without any justification. The conduct of the petitioner-wife is
clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as she has disregarded the terms
and conditions agreed before the Mediator in the settlement
proceedings which were undertaken pursuant to the directions of
this Court. Not only this, because of her conduct, the respondent-
husband has been put to grave disadvantage inasmuch as he has
withdrawn the matrimonial case and has also paid a significant
proportion of the permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife in terms
of the settlement agreement.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on instructions
states that his client undertakes to abide by the remaining terms
and conditions of the settlement agreement in letter and spirit and
shall make due payments on the schedule dates if the marriage is
dissolved.
4
9. A similar situation was examined by this Court in the case of
1
Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others , the
relevant excerpts whereof read as follows: -
“ 4 . It is the above order of the High Court that is under
challenge before us in this appeal. During the pendency of the
proceedings before the courts below and in this Court, certain
developments have taken place which have a material bearing
on the merits of this appeal. The complaint which the appellant
herein filed is dated 10-4-2002. Thereafter, a divorce petition
was filed by the appellant wife before the Family Court at
Nainital. In the said divorce petition a compromise was arrived
at between the parties in which it was stated that the first
respondent husband was willing for a consent divorce and that
the appellant wife had received all her stridhan and
maintenance in lump sum. She also declared in the said
compromise deed that she is not entitled to any maintenance
in future. It is also stated in the said compromise deed that the
parties to the proceedings would withdraw all criminal and civil
complaints filed against each other which includes the criminal
complaint filed by the appellant which is the subject-matter of
this appeal. The said compromise deed contains annexures
with the particulars of the items given to the appellant at the
time of marriage and which were returned. The said
compromise deed is signed by the appellant. But before any
order could be passed on the basis of the said compromise
petition, the appellant herein wrote a letter to the Family Court
at Nainital which was received by the Family Court on 3-10-
2003 wherein it was stated that she was withdrawing the
compromise petition because she had not received the agreed
amount. But subsequently when her statement was recorded
by the Family Court, she withdrew the said letter of 3-10-2003
and stated before the court in her statement that she wanted a
divorce and that there is no dispute in relation to any amount
pending. The court, after recording the said statement, granted
a divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
dissolving the marriage by mutual consent by its order dated 3-
3-2004.
5. In the compromise petition, referred to hereinabove, both the
parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases
filed by each against the other. It is pursuant to this
compromise, the above divorce as sought for by the appellant
was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said
compromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case
1
(2005) 3 SCC 299
5
| No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which | |
|---|
| was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal | |
| Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the | |
| submission made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of | |
| the terms of the compromise, the said case came to be | |
| dismissed. However, so far as the complaint under Sections | |
| 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the | |
| Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the subject-matter | |
| of this appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw | |
| the same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was | |
| filed before the High Court which came to be partially allowed | |
| on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said | |
| order the appellant has preferred this appeal. | |
| 6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the | |
|---|
| compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant | |
| admitted that she has received stridhan and maintenance in | |
| lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of | |
| any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all | |
| proceedings, civil and criminal, filed and initiated by her | |
| against the respondents within one month of the compromise | |
| deed, which included the complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 | |
| and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry | |
| Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the | |
| said compromise, the respondent husband agreed to withdraw | |
| his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act | |
| pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and | |
| also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the | |
| appellant. | |
| 7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a | |
|---|
| divorce as desired by her under Section 13-B of the Hindu | |
| Marriage Act and in partial compliance with the terms of the | |
| compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section | |
| 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better | |
| known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which | |
| this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court | |
| quashing the said complaint on the ground of territorial | |
| jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this | |
| background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this | |
| appeal. | |
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however,
contended that though the appellant had signed the
compromise deed with the abovementioned terms in it, the
same was obtained by the respondent husband and his family
under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump
sum maintenance and her stridhan properties. We find it
extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background
of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the
6
| respondent husband has given her a consent divorce which she | |
|---|
| wanted, thus had performed his part of the obligation under the | |
| compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her | |
| part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint | |
| filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a | |
| complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 | |
| CrPC proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was | |
| filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a | |
| statement before the said court affirming the terms of the | |
| compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court | |
| and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. | |
| Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having | |
| received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis | |
| of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the | |
| argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our | |
| opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the | |
| criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed | |
| by the wife only to harass the respondents. | |
9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the
conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the
process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which
this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are
of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should
while dismissing this appeal also quash the proceedings
arising from criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in
Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under
Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents
herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of .”
(emphasis supplied)
10. On going through the material available on record, we find
that the matrimonial relations between the spouses have broken
down irrevocably and there is no possibility of reconciliation and
revival of the spousal relationship. Hence, looking at the conduct
of the petitioner-wife as indicated supra and the other attending
facts and circumstances, we are inclined to exercise the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to grant decree
7
of divorce and hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent is dissolved.
11. However, it is made clear that the respondent in terms of the
settlement shall make the remaining payment to the petitioner.
12. The petition is allowed in these terms.
13. Decree be prepared accordingly.
14. No order as to costs.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(S.V.N. BHATTI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
May 15, 2024
8
