Anuj Tomar vs Smt. Priyanka

Rajiv Sharma, J.

Per-Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A family dispute arose between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife consequent to the cruelty said to have been committed by the

respondent/wife. A Suit being Original Suit No. 255 of 2013 was filed whereby the husband/appellant sought a decree of divorce for dissolving the

marriage dated 17.06.2012. However, the said Suit was dismissed by the Additional Family Court Roorkee, District Hardwar vide its judgment dated

17.10.2015.

Against the said judgment the appellant/husband has preferred the instant first appeal questioning the decree dated 17.10.2015 and praying for grant

of decree of divorce. The appeal has been admitted on 20.06.2017. However, before the admission of the appeal an application being Compromise

Application No. 1946 of 2016 was filed by invoking Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In pursuance to the said

compromise, which was duly signed by both the parties and their respective counsel, which was filed by the parties before this Court on 05.03.2016.

When the matter was taken up again the respondent/wife tried to deny the veracity of the compromise alleging that a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as settled to

be paid to her was not remitted. This statement of the wife atleast leads to an inference that she admits the execution of the compromise, but, with the

rider that the amount settled was not paid.

When the controversy was raised by the counsel for the respondent, this Court vide its order dated 19.07.2017 directing the appellant to place on

record the exact details of the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the Bank accounts and its mode of payment. When the matter was listed

today the 11th August, 2017 the appellant’s counsel submitted an account statement of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Haridwar, Ganeshpur, standing in

the name of Bhup Singh, the father of the appellant against whose account as per entries made on 07.12.2015 and 28.12.2015, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-

and Rs. 9,50,000/-has been withdrawn. On being asked the question, as to whether the compromise bears the signature of the wife or not, the counsel

for the respondent/wife admits that it is the signature of the wife. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into compromise, strictly within the

provision of Order 23 Rule 3, and the same constitutes as to be the part of the appeal as filed by the parties being signed by their respective counsels

being the Compromise Application No. 1946 of 2016, is a compromise within Order 23 Rule 3, this appeal too is disposed of in terms of the

compromise which will form integral part of the decree. In furtherance of the compromise a statement was made by the counsel for the parties that all

other proceedings before the court below had already been withdrawn.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise as settled by the application No. 1946 of 2016. The marriage dated 17.06.2012

between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved. Registry is directed to prepare a decree in terms of compromise. The appeal is accordingly

disposed off. No order as to costs.