Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Anupam Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:32969]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 335/2022
Anupam Sharma S/o Sh. Manoharlal Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, R/o W.no. 6, Bidasar, Bidasar, Dist. Churu, Raj.- 331501.
Presently R/o At Golders Green, Building No. 2, Wing B, Flat No.
504, Holy Cross Road, Ic Colony Extn., Borivali (W), Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400103.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Bhagyashree Sharma D/o Sh. Ganesh Sharma
(Pujari), R/o W.no. 3, Salasar, Sujangarh, Salasar, Dist.
Churu, Raj. 331506.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Aman Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Ms. Bhagyashree Sharma,
(Respondent No.2 present in person)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
05/08/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
“…
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, to end
the multiple litigation by clubbing all the
matters/cases or application filed by the
Respondent No. 2 or her family members against
the Petitioner or his family members which are
pending at Ratangarh and Sujangarh be decided by
this Hon’ble Court in the light and terms of
Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022,(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (2 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this
Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction and also in the light of mutually agreed
Settlement Agreement, may kindly quash all the
pending cases or application or proceedings, which
are as follows –
S. Title Court Filed Under
No. Provision
1. Bhagyashree v. ACJM - Ratangarh Section 125 CrPC
Anupam (Case No-
343/2021)
2. State of Rajasthan v. ACJM- Ratangarh Section 190 in
Anupam & Ors. connection with
FIR 18/2018
along with trial of
charges levied as
per chargesheet.
3. Bhagyashree ADJ Sujangarh Section 13B
Sharma v Anupam under the Hindu
Sharma (Case No. - Marriage Act,
31/2022) 1955.
c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
Respondent No. 2 be directed to comply with the
terms of Settlement Agreement and withdraw all
the cases and applications filed against the
Petitioner or his family members in the light of the
mutually agreed Settlement Agreement dated
06.04.2022,
d) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Ld.
ADJ Sujangarh Court, District Churu, and Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM)
Ratangarh, Churu to not pass any order contrary to
mutually agreed Settlement Agreement,
e) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this
Hon’ble Court may exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction to protect the rights of petitioner and to
safeguard him from harassment.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the
petitioner- Anupam Sharma with the respondent No.2-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (3 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
Bhagyashree Sharma was solemnized on 19.11.2013 at Village
Salasar, District Churu, Rajasthan as per Hindu rites and rituals.
One daughter namely Ms. ‘K’ was born out of the said wedlock.
However, due to certain matrimonial differences between the
petitioner and the respondent No.2, the couple started living
separately from 13.08.2017 and the minor daughter, Ms. ‘K’
started living with respondent No.2.
3. Owing to the matrimonial differences between the petitioner and
the respondent No.2, various civil/criminal proceedings have
been initiated by the parties against each other. The details of
the various cases pending between the parties are as under:-
(1) Cases No.343/2021, pending in the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh.
(2) State of Astrakhan Vs. Anupam & Ors., pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh.
(3) Case No.31/2022: Bhagyashree Sharma Vs. Anupam
Sharma, pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh.
(4) Bhagyashree Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (REG
No.257/2021), pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate-9, Jaipur Metro I.
(5) Yudhister Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan REG.
No.11870/2019, pending in the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate- 8, Jaipur Metro I.
4. The record of the case indicates that it was when the Court of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh,
while hearing an application filed by the respondent No.2 under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance, passed an
order for seizure of the petitioner’s passport, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.322/2022 titled as ‘Anupam Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan‘ praying for the following reliefs:-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (4 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
“In the said premises and to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner
humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may benevolently be pleased
to allow this petition and to:
a) Quash and set aside the order dated 18/12/2021 passed in
Criminal Revision Petition 10/2021 by the Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge, Ratangarh, Churu and the order dated 26/11/2021 passed
by the Ld. ACJM, Ratangarh, Churu in connection with FIR
No.11/2018 registered on 01.02.2018 at police station Salasar,
Sujangarh, Churu;
b) Allow the Petitioner to travel to Singapore for joining his
employment;
c) To direct the release of Applicant’s Passport;
d) To lay down procedure to further participate in court
proceedings without hampering his foreign employment subject
to any condition deemed just by this Hon’ble Court;….”
5. During pendency of the proceedings in relation to S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.322/2022 before this Court, learned counsel
appearing for both the petitioner and the respondent No.2
jointly submitted that there is a possibility of amicable
settlement between the parties and, therefore, the parties be
provided for a common platform to negotiate. Taking into
consideration the willingness of both parties to resolve their
disputes through mediation, this Court, vide order dated
05.03.2022, was pleased to refer the matter to the Mediation
Center attached with this Court.
6. On 12.04.2022, when the matter was taken up again by this
Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2,
informed the Court that the mediation has been successful and
the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have entered into a
written Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022. This
Court in view of the aforesaid statements made at the Bar was
pleased to dispose of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (5 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
“Anupam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan” vide order dated
12.04.2022 while making following observations-
“1. On 05.03.2022, this Court has found element of
settlement between the parties and, therefore, referred both
the parties for mediation/conciliation before the Mediation
Center, attached with this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mediation has been successful and as per the terms of
settlement, the petitioner has handed-over an FDR of Rs.1
crore to the respondent- complainant and the remaining
amount would be paid/deposited before the second motion.
3. While informing that the parties have decided to dissolve
their matrimony, learned counsel submits that a petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual
divorce has been filed by the petitioner and the complainant.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the impugned order dated 28.11.2018, passed by the learned
trial Court, to the extent of seizure of petitioner’s passport is
set aside. 5. The learned trial Court/concerned Station House
Officer, whosoever is having custody of petitioner’s passport
or any other journey documents, is directed to forthwith
hand-over same to the petitioner.
6. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner shall be free to
undertake any journey abroad in accordance with law.
7. The miscellaneous petition as well as the stay application
stands disposed of.
8. In case the petitioner intentionally avoids proceedings
before the trial Court or the Family Court, the respondent
No.2 shall be free to move application for revival of instant
petition and pray for appropriate directions.”
7. On 29.07.2022, respondent No. 2 filed an application before this
Court– S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022 in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 322/2022–seeking to recall the order dated
12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2022,
which directed the release of the petitioner’s passport as well as took
the Mediated Settlement Agreement between the parties on record.
The application was filed on the ground that although a compromise
between the parties was initially reached at the Mediation Centre, the
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (6 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
respondent no. 2 later discovered that the ornaments/streedhan,
which were claimed to be handed over to the investigating officer by
the petitioner, did not match with the list that she had submitted. In
other words, the respondent no. 2 alleged that the substantial
ornaments/streedhan are still in petitioner’s possession. Further,
the respondent no. 2 submitted that though as per the Mediated
Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022, the petitioner
tendered a demand draft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only)
in the name of their daughter, Ms. ‘K’, in the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Sujangarh but later on, the petitioner
applied for the return of the demand draft in the trial Court on
the ground that the respondent No. 2 is yet to withdraw the
criminal case against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 submitted
that according to the settlement agreement, she had time to
withdraw the case until the filing of the second motion for
divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
therefore, the petitioner’s application for withdrawal
demonstrates mala fide conduct and an unwillingness to comply
with the terms of the Mediated Settlement agreement. For the
reasons stated above and the reasons mentioned in her
application –S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022, the
respondent No. 2 prayed that she no longer wishes to
compromise and seeks to retract from the Mediated Settlement
Agreement.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note here that during pendency of
the S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022 filed on behalf
of the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the instant Criminal
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (7 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
Misc. Petition before this Court seeking enforcement of the
Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022 and also
praying for other reliefs which have been reproduced in
paragraph 01 of this present order.
9. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022 in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2022 filed on behalf of the
respondent No.2 came to be decided by this Court vide order
dated 08.10.2024 and certain corrections in the order dated
08.10.2024 at the request of petitioner and respondent No.2
were incorporated vide order dated 05.11.2024. The order
passed by this Court while disposing of S.B. Criminal Misc.
Application No.245/2022 (as it would be after incorporating
corrections) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“By way of the present application, the applicant (Bhagya
Shri Sharma w/o Anupam Sharma) has prayed that the order
dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.322/2022 be recalled and petitioner’s passport be ordered to
be seized.
2. The applicant, present in person submitted that the order
under consideration (12.04.2022) was passed in wake of the fact
that the parties have entered into a compromise. She submitted
that though a compromise or understanding between the
petitioner and her was reduced in writing but later on owing to
changed circumstances, the applicant found that the amount
being payed in terms of the compromise dated 06.04.2022
(Rs.1,00,00,000/- for her daughter and Rs.80,00,000/- for
herself) was not sufficient, more particularly, when her
ornaments/streedhan which claimed to be handed over to the
investigating officer was not as per the list submitted by her. She
assulted that substantial jewellery is still in husband’s possession.
3. It was submitted by the applicant that she does not want to
continue with the compromise and want to retract. According to
her, said compromise is just a piece of paper and unless the
compromise is adhered to and fully acted upon, passport can not
be handed over to the petitioner i.e. her husband (Anupam
Sharma).
4. Heard the applicant and Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned
counsel appearing for the husband.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (8 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
5. True it is, that order that 12.04.2022 was passed in view of
the fact that the husband and wife (the applicant and
respondent) had entered into a compromise and executed an
settlement which took place in the mediation centre attached
with this Court.
6. It is also not in dispute that the husband had tendered a
demand draft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- drawn in the name of his
daughter namely Kia to the respondent Ms. Bhagya Shri Sharma
(w/o the applicant) and the same is being utilized for Ms. Kia.
7. The husband (Anupam Sharma) is charted financial analyst
and working in J.P. Morgan in Singapore.
8. According to this Court, carrier (sic) of the petitioner cannot
be stifled on account of matrimonial discord. The seizure of his
passport would amount to curtailment of his fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the
Constitution.
9. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to recall the
order dated 12.04.2022 as the recalling of the order would
amount to seizure of petitioner’s passport and his deportation in
India.
10. According to this Court, instant application is nothing
but a tool to arm-twist her husband (petitioner) to extract
more money. The applicant (wife) had gleefully accepted
the one time compensation/alimony of Rs.1,80,00,000/-
and she has now taken a U-turn just for more money, as
evident from the record.
11. That apart, there is no provision of review in criminal
procedure code (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) and the
same is barred under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
12. The criminal misc. application is thus rejected.”
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present
case, the respondent No.2 has voluntarily and out of own her
free will, signed the Mediated Settlement Agreement dated
06.04.2022, and the same was recorded by this Court in its
order dated 12.04.2022, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.322/2022. Learned counsel submitted that in furtherance of
complying with the terms of the Mediated Settlement
Agreement, the petitioner on 06.04.2022 created a Fixed
Deposit (F.D.) of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in the name
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (9 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
of his daughter, Ms. ‘K’, and also created a Demand Draft (D.D.)
of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eightly Lacs Only)in favour of respondent
No.2- Bhagyashree. Learned counsel submitted that the F.D. of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in favour of the daughter,
Ms. ‘K’, was handed over to the respondent No.2 at the time of
filing the application seeking mutual divorce under Section 13-B
of HMA, 1955 and the said amount is also being utilized for the
maintenance of their daughter, Ms. ‘K’. The D.D. of Rs.
80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) was to be handed over to the
respondent No.2 at the time of filing of the second motion.
However, before the second motion could be filed, the
respondent No. 2 herself withdrew from the terms of the
Mediated Settlement Agreement, which she had herself entered
into voluntarily and with free consent, alleging that the
petitioner induced her to sign the agreement under pressure.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent No.2 is playing hot and cold at the same time and by
doing the same, she is tarnishing the sanctity of Settlement
Agreement and the said allegations are merely a way to extort
more money from the petitioner unlawfully in the name of
streedhan. He submitted that the acts and omissions of
respondent No. 2 are not only contemptuous but also fall within
the definition of perjury and to substantiate this contention,
learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards the order
dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.322/2022 and order dated 08.10.2024 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022. On these
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (10 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
aforementioned grounds, the learned counsel implored the Court
to allow the instant criminal misc. petition.
12. Per contra, Bhagyashree Sharma- respondent No.2 (present in
person) vehemently and fervently submitted that ample
evidence is available on record to indicate that the petitioner has
backed out from the terms of the Mediated Settlement
Agreement. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner
never had any intention to comply with the terms and conditions
of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and he only used it as a
tool to escape the clutches of law. To substantiate this
contention, respondent No.2 drew the attention of the Court
towards the fact that though as per the terms and conditions of
the Mediated Settlement Agreement, the petitioner was under
an obligation to disburse the sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (One
Crore Eighty Lacs Only) in favour of respondent No.2 and their
daughter but he has paid only a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One
Crore Only) towards the maintenance of her daughter. The
denial of immediate payment of the remaining Rs.80,00,000/-
(Eighty Lacs Only) in favour of respondent No.2 leaves no room
of doubt that he did not want to adhere to the terms of the
Mediated Settlement Agreement. The respondent No. 2
submitted that not only did the petitioner fail to make the
payment of the remaining amount but he also applied to the
learned trial Court in order to recover the amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only). The respondent No.2
submitted that the petitioner’s refusal to pay Rs.80,00,000/-
(Eighty Lacs Only), coupled with his application before the Court
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (11 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to withdraw the
maintenance amount made in favour of their daughter Ms. “K”,
clearly demonstrates a willful conduct of non-compliance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and a blatant disregard
for the petitioner’s legal and moral obligations towards the
welfare and maintenance of his minor daughter.
13. The respondent No. 2 further submitted that in addition to
violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement as
aforementioned, the respondent No.2 discovered that her
valuable ornaments, jewelry, and utensils, compromising
approximately 2 kgs of gold and 20 kgs of silver, have yet not
been recovered by the Investigating Agency. In other words, the
entire alleged streedhan, has yet not been handed over or
deposited by the petitioner with the police.
14. The respondent No.2 further also alleged that the petitioner had
threatened her to viral her objectionable pictures which were
clicked while they were living together as husband and wife. The
petitioner had also been continuously using abusive language
against her. The matter relating to threats by the petitioner with
respect to making make her objectionable pictures viral is
pending before the criminal Court at Jaipur.
15. The respondent No. 2 contended that she is incurring significant
expenses related to her daughter’s health, and the interest
earned from the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) is
being utilized for the ongoing treatment of Ms. “K.” She prayed
that the petitioner be directed to hand over a part of their
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (12 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
daughter’s umbilical cord, which is currently in the possession of
the petitioner.
16. Lastly, the respondent No. 2 submitted that the Mediated
Settlement Agreement can be considered to be a contract under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provided it meets the essential
elements of a valid contract. She submitted that the petitioner’s
acts and omissions in the present case, clearly demonstrate his
unwillingness to comply with certain terms and conditions of the
agreement and consequently, considering the Mediated
Settlement Agreement as a contract, she also has the right to
be excused or released from her obligations under the said
agreement. Thus she prayed that since the Mediated
Settlement Agreement between the parties holds no value, the
instant petition may be dismissed and the subordinate Courts
may be directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with
law.
In support of the arguments raised by the respondent No.2,
reliance was placed on the judgments rendered in the following
cases:
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v Cherian Varkey Construction Co., (2010) 8
SCC 24
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954) SCR 310
Food Corporation of India v. AM Ahmed (1990) 1 SCC 397
Sushila Devi v Hari Singh (2002) 2 SCC 348
Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros (1990) 1 SCC 536
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Mohan Lal & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 319
Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 2
SCC 409
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (13 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] Sailaja Developers v Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai (2015) 3 AIR
Bom R 710
M/S Guru Nanak Industries v. Amar Singh (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1645.
17. E-Converso, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the entire streedhan has already been recovered by the
investigating agency. He further stated that the respondent No.2
had voluntarily and with her free consent signed the agreement,
whereby she had acknowledged that there is no dispute
remaining regarding her streedhan. He submitted that the
respondent No.2, only with a view to retract from the Mediated
Settlement Agreement is alleging that the petitioner is still in
possession of her gold/silver ornaments and jewelry.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the order dated
22.08.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu for release of
recovered streedhan in favour of the respondent no. 2 on her
furnishing bail bonds and supurdaginama, the respondent No.2
has not taken the recovered streedhan for reasons best known
to her. He submitted that the intentions of respondent No. 2 to
keep the petitioner embroiled in prolonged litigation are clearly
evident from her conduct in the present case.
19. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner never intended to
demand the return of the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only)
paid by him towards the maintenance of his daughter, Ms. “K.”
However, considering that respondent No. 2 was unwilling to
honour the terms and conditions of the Mediated Settlement
Agreement and taking into account her conduct, the petitioner
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (14 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
filed the application to ensure the proper utilization of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) paid by him. He further
clarified that the petitioner has neither withdrawn the
maintenance amount till date nor he intends to do so. Instead,
he has prayed that he is willing to comply with all the terms of
the Mediated Settlement Agreement and has requested the
Court to enforce the same.
20. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondent No.2 who has appeared before this Court in person.
21. After perusing the case files available on record and considering
the submissions made by the respondent no. 2, the principal
allegations regarding the petitioner’s breach of the compromise
can be summarized as follows: –
(i) That the petitioner after handing over F.D. of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in the name of their
daughter, Ms.’K’, filed an application seeking return of the
same. Further, a D.D. of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only)
which was to be made in favour of the respondent No. 2 by
the petitioner has yet not been handed over to the
respondent No. 2.
(ii) The streedhan given to the respondent No. 2 by her paternal
family at the time of her marriage, has yet not been
deposited in its entirety with the Investigating Agency and
the same still lies in the possession of the petitioner.
22. Consideration with respect to principal allegation No.(i):-
This Court, upon perusing the Court files, finds that the Fixed
Deposit to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (15 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]created by the petitioner in favour of his daughter continues to
be utilized for her welfare and maintenance. Consequently, the
amount has yet not been returned to the petitioner. The
petitioner has specifically stated before this Court that he never
intended to reclaim the F.D. created in favour of her daughter.
However, the application for its return was filed by the petitioner
only after the respondent No. 2 exhibited unwillingness to
comply with the settlement’s terms, particularly to prevent
potential misuse of the F.D. entrusted to her for the child’s
welfare. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the
sum of ₹80,00,000/- (Eighty Lakhs Only) was to be paid to the
respondent No.2 as per condition No. 6(c) of the Settlement
Agreement between the parties at the evidentiary stage (second
motion) before the competent Court hearing the mutual divorce
proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The relevant condition No.6(c) of the Settlement Agreement is
reproduced herein below for ready reference: –
“¼x½ ;g fd n~forh; i{k vuqie izFke i{k o mldh iq=h fd;k dks muds
,d eq”r Hkj.k iks’k.k ¼ONE TIME MAINTENANCE½ gsrq 1]80]00]000
v{kjs ,d djksM+ vLlh yk[k #i;s vnk djsxkA ftles ls ,d djksM+ #i;s dh
Mh-Mh- ¼Mh-Mh- la[;k 295872 ,l-ch-vkbZ-cSda ½ iq=h fd;k ds [kkrs esa tek djkus
gsrq izkfFkZ;k iRuh dks nsnh x;h gS ftlls og ,d ,Q-Mh- fd;k ds uke ls cuk
dj mDr ,Q-Mh- dh jlhn dh QksVks izfr U;k;ky; esa tek djok,xhA ftlls
feyus okyk ekfld C;kt iq=h fd;k dh csfufQV gsrq [kpZ djus gsrq izkfFkZ;k
iRuh Lora= jgsxhA o mDr ,Q-Mh- dks bu&VsDV j[kk tk,xk o ftls iq=h fd;k
ds vo;Ld jgrs dsoy U;k;y; dh vuqefr ls gh foFk&Mªk@jgu ¼ LOAN½
fd;k tk ldsxhA o iq=h fd;k ds o;Ld gksus mijkUr iq=h fd;k mDr jkf”k dks
foFk Mªk djokus gsrq Lora= jgsxhA o vLlh yk[k #i;s iRuh HkkX;Jh ds uke ls
mlds [kkrs esa ;k Mh-Mh- ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ ifr vuqie ds }kjk gLrxr izdj.k
esa U;k;ky; esa c;kuksa ds le; U;k;ky; ds le{k tek djok fn, tk;saxsA ”
23. Consideration with respect to principal allegation No.(ii):-
Regarding principal allegation No.(ii), it is pertinent to note
that during mediation proceedings, the respondent No.2
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (16 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]acknowledged that no dispute concerning streedhan was
pending between the parties and further agreed that she would
be free to recover her streedhan from police custody, should she
choose to do so. The relevant condition no.6(a) of the
Settlement Agreement between the parties reads as under:-
“¼d½ ;g fd izFke i{k o n~forh; i{k ds e/; fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ L=h/ku ;k
ysu&nsu lEcU/kh dksbZ fookn ugha jg x;k gS o tks L=h/ku Fkkus esa QkStnkjh
izdj.k esa tek gS mls ysus gsrq izkfFkZ;k iRuh LorU= jgsxhA ”
24. To address the aforementioned allegation, the petitioner and
respondent No. 2 were questioned in open Court whether they
had prepared a jointly signed list of the presents (streedhan)
given at the time of marriage, in accordance with the Dowry
Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and
Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. The said question was answered by
both the parties in negative. In other words, there is no record
of any list, signed by the bride, bridegroom, or any other person
present at the time of marriage, to verify the authenticity of
respondent No. 2’s claim that the petitioner retained her
valuable streedhan. Additionally, the case record reveals that
respondent No. 2 has not secured the recovery or release of the
streedhan in her favour by furnishing bail bonds and sureties,
despite the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Court of the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District
Churu.
25. Conclusion:
It is not in dispute that on 05.03.2022, upon finding an
element of settlement between the parties and with the consent
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (17 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]of both the parties, this Court referred the matter for mediation
before the Mediation Centre attached with this Court. In
furtherance of compliance of the said order, both the parties
entered into a dialogue at the Mediation Centre, in the presence
of a trained and accredited mediator, who is well equipped with
the necessary skills to facilitate dialogue and who also helped
the parties amicably reach a voluntary and informed settlement.
This Court finds that the respondent No.2 has questioned the
piousness and integrity of the mediation proceedings on the
ground that she was pressurised during the mediation
proceedings by the petitioner to append her signatures on the
Settlement Agreement. This Court finds it difficult to accept the
allegation that the signatures of the respondent No.2 were
obtained on the Mediated Settlement Agreement without her
free consent through means of coercion as for the reason that
the mediation proceedings were conducted in the Mediation
Centre attached with this Court through a trained mediator
under the orders of this Court; and no cogent evidence or
material has been placed on record to substantiate this
allegation. Further, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022
pending before this Court was decided on 12.04.2022, in the
presence of both the parties by recording the mediation has
been successful. Had there been any substance in the
allegation, the same could have been raised by the respondent
No.2 at the time of disposal of the said Criminal Misc. Petition.
However, the respondent No.2 not only waited for almost four
months to make an application to recall the order dated
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (18 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]12.04.2022, but in the meantime, also accepted the FD of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) created by the petitioner in
favour of daughter, Ms. K and also utilised the interest accruing
from the said FD.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Trisha
Singh vs. Anurag Kumar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1191, has criticised the conduct of either of the parties, who
wants to wriggle out of a Settlement Agreement only with a
view to harass the other party. It is pertinent to note here that
while disposing of the application S.B. Criminal Misc. Application
No.245/2022, filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 to recall
order dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.322/2022, this Court observed that the respondent No.2 is
trying to arm twist her husband to extract more money and
after having gleefully accepted the one time
compensation/alimony, she has now taken a U-turn just for
more money.
In the opinion of this Court, if either party to a Mediated
Settlement Agreement, is allowed to resile from the said
agreement, which has been executed in free and fair manner
and in the presence of trained mediator, then it would be
detrimental to the efforts made by Legislature and Judiciary to
strengthen and formalize ‘Mediation’ as a vital mode of justice
delivery systern which in turn would discourage parties from
turning towards any forum of Alternate Dispute Resolution to
get their disputes redressed.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (19 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
The judgments cited at bar by the respondent No.2
appearing in person do not pertain to Settlement Agreements or
an agreement reached at by the process of mediation. Thus, the
said judgments have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
26. Consequently, the instant criminal writ petition merits
acceptance and is hereby allowed. The Settlement Agreement
dated 06.04.2022 is held binding upon the parties. The criminal
cases pending between the parties, the details whereof have
been given in para 3 of this judgment are quashed and set
aside. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.80,00,000/-
(Eighty Lacs Only) as permanent alimony to respondent No.2 on
her appearance on second motion before the Court of learned
ADJ, Sujangarh, Churu in the pending application under Section
13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the event, the respondent
No.2 fails to appear before Court of learned ADJ, Sujangarh,
Churu on second motion, an ex-parte divorce decree shall be
passed in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall
deposit the amount of alimony to the tune of
Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) through FD with the Court of
learned ADJ, Sujangarh, Churu in favour of respondent No.2.
27. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link