High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 01 P&H CK 0165

Vandana Yadav vs Maj. Pradyumna Singh Yadav

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J · Satish Kumar Mittal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
F.A.O. No. M-144 of 2008 (O and M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 598 words

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This appeal has been filed by Vandana Yadav � wife, against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008, passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, whereby on a petition filed by Maj. Pradyumna Singh Yadav � husband (respondent herein) u/s 13 (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage between the parties has been ordered to be dissolved.

2.

During the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. On 5.12.2011, the respondent-husband made the following statement :

I agree to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs towards the arrears of maintenance and permanent alimony within a period of one month, if the appellant Vandana Yadav withdraws the present appeal. In addition thereto, I shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as educational expenses of my son namely Bhanu Partap Singh uptill his attaining the age of 23 years or the date of his graduation, whichever is earlier. The appellant should withdraw all complaints/criminal proceedings filed by her and pending before any Court on receipt of said amount.

3.

The appellant-wife had accepted the offer made by the respondent-husband in his aforesaid statement and made the following statement :

I have heard the statement of Pradyuman Singh Yadav and accept the same. I shall withdraw the present appeal i.e. FAO No. 144-M of 2008 on receipt of Rs. 30 lacs within a period of one month towards my permanent alimony. I shall also withdraw the criminal appeal bearing No. 448-MA of 2011 within two weeks thereafter. Respondent-Pradyuman Singh Yadav should continue to pay Rs. 10,000/- from 01.12.2011 towards educational expenses of Bhanu Partap Singh uptill his attaining the age of 23 years or till the date of his graduation, whichever is earlier. I shall not make any other complaint to the Army Authorities against Pradyuman Singh Yadav. The amount of maintenance remitted by the Army Authorities henceforth shall be adjusted towards the maintenance payable to my son. The amount of maintenance be directly remitted to my bank account till Bhanu Partap Singh attains the age of 18 years. After he attains the age of 18 years, I shall inform the respondent about the bank details of Bhanu Partap Singh, wherein the amount of maintenance can be remitted directly.

4.

Today, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as stated by them in their aforesaid statements, the respondent, who is present in Court, has brought two bank drafts of Rs. 15 lacs each issued by the State Bank of India, Branch Kosli, District Rewari, in favour of the appellant. The same have been handed over to appellant, who is also present in Court. The respondent also undertakes to continuously pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as educational expenses of his son Bhanu Partap Singh uptill his attaining the age of 23 years or the date of his graduation, whichever is earlier. The appellant also undertakes to withdraw all the complaints/ criminal proceedings filed by her. She further undertakes that FAO No. 448-MA of 2011 filed by her father shall be withdrawn within ten days from today, as the amount, as agreed between the parties, has been paid to her.

5.

In view of the aforesaid settlement, understanding and the undertaking given by the respondent-husband, learned counsel for the appellant-wife states that the appellant accepts the decree of divorce granted by the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008, and she may be permitted to withdraw this appeal.

6.

Dismissed as withdrawn.