RAVI SINGHAL AND ORS. versus MONALI SINGHAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 01-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAVI SINGHAL AND ORS. 
v. 
MONALI SINGHAL AND ANR. 
OCTOBER l, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Matrimonial dispute-Memorandum of settlement providing.for separate 
C 
residence and maintenance .for wife and child-Suit be.fore High Court for 
enforcement of settlement-Interim order by Single Judge regarding maintenance 
.for w(fe. and child and school expenses .for child-No interference by Division 
Bench of High Court-Plea of husband that suit was not maintainable and 
remedy is to.file application under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and 
there cannot be any judicial separation under an agreement; that settlement is 
D 
void as it was signed under duress and not with.free consent; that if1(erim order 
has virtually given entire relief sought for in the suit~Held, the discretionary 
power exercised by High Court cannot be said to be perverse or irrational so 
as to warrant interference by Supreme Court-But at the same time defendant:.· 
have raised certain serious contentions which require consideration when 
E 
matter would come up for trial-Suit to be tried expeditiously-Parties to 
explore pos:ribility of amicable settlement-Interim order. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6955-6956 of 
2001. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2000 and 24.11.2000 of the 
G 
H 
Delhi in F.A.O. (OS) No. 9/99 and R.A. No. 1419 of 2000. 
Y.P. Narula, Abhijit Chatterjee and Ranjan Mukherjee Advs. for the 
appellants. 
Ashok Desai, M.C. Bhandare, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand and 
Ms. Geeta Luthra and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. 
460 
RAVI SINGHAL v. MONALI SINGHAL 
461 
These appeals are filed against judgment and order dated 28. 7.2000 passed 
A 
by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) No. 9 of 1999 and 
order dated 24.11.2000 in R.A. No. 1419 of 2000, preferred against an interim 
order dated 28.10.1998 passed earlier by a learned Single Judge. The appellants 
herein are defendants in Suit No. 2583 of 1997 on the file of original jurisdiction 
of the High Court of Delhi, having been filed by the respondents herein for the 
B 
enforcement of an alleged Family Settlement entered into between the parties on 
4.11.1994. The facts in brief are as under. 
The first appellant, Ravi Singhal, married the first respondent on 10.2.1989. 
The second respondent is their daughter born on 18.3.1991. After the marriage, 
the first respondent was staying with the appellants in her matrimonial home at 
Vasant Vihar in New Delhi. It seems that the marriage ran into rough weather by 
1994. The first respondent had to accompany her mother for treatment abroad 
and she returned with her mother to India on 31.10.1994 and according to the 
first respondent, when she arrived in Delhi she was informed by the first appellant 
that he did not want to continue the marital relations. The first appellant, on the 
other hand, would say that on arrival from abroad the first respondent went 
straight to her parents' house. There was no possibility of any reconciliation 
between the parties and the relationship continued to be sour. The first respondent 
along with second respondent left the matrimonial home at Vasant Vihar and 
started living with her parents. It appears that there were negotiations between 
the parties to arrive at some settlement and on 4.11.1994, a written agreement 
was entered into between the parties. All the appellants herein signed the 
agreement. A true copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure P-7. The 
appellants do not dispute the genuineness of the agreement. It has been contended 
by the first appellant in the written statement filed by him before the High Court 
that the agreement entered into on 4.11.1994 is void and not liable to be specifically 
enforced as the appellants had signed the same under duress and not with free 
consent. According to the appellants, the mother of the first respondent was 
brought to India on 31.10.1994 and as she was critically ill and she was admitted 
c 
D 
E 
F 
in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the first respondent insisted the 
appellants to sign the Settlement Deed as she wanted to show the signed agreement 
G 
and satisfy her mother that every dispute was setHed. According to the first 
appellant, the agreement signed by him on 4.11.1994 was not intended to be 
acted upon and it was merely a paper t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.