Pankaj Singh v. Pramila Singh, under Section

1. Case called out. No one appears for the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties are present.

2. By means of present revision u/s 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 810/11 of 2023 - Pankaj Singh Vs. Pramila Singh, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 321/11/2021 - Smt. Pramila Singh and Others Vs. Pankaj Singh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Visheshwarganj, District - Bahraich whereby interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of opposite parties.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that this Court by means of order dated 21.02.2024, directed the parties to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court for participating in the mediation process. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation Center on the date fixed and after certain deliberations and discussion the parties arrived at settlement agreement and a report dated 04.04.2024, of the Mediation and Conciliation Center High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed in the aforesaid case may be set aside in view of the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the revisionist as well as opposite party no. 2 have settled the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to litigate any further against the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has no objection in case the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is set aside in the light of the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into settlement agreement and have settled their dispute amicably. The terms of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties dated 04.04.2024, are quoted herein below :- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto : A) That both the parties have agreed to live together, with love, affection, giving due respect to each other and taking good care of each other at the place of the First Party where ever he resides. B) That both the parties have agreed to discharge their matrimonial obligations/duties without any kind of misbehaviour or harassment towards each other as well as each others" family members. C) That the parties have agreed to ensure that their respective family members shall not make undue interference in the matrimonial affairs of the parties. D) That the First Party has agreed to take every care in grooming his child namely Master Kaushik Singh in respect of his schooling, education and future obligations towards his professional settlement with utmost fatherly love and care. E) It has been agreed between the parties that the share of the First Party arising out of ancestral property and arising out of his father's name as well as arising out of his own shall vest with Master Kaushik Singh in accordance with law. F) That it is being agreed between the parties that the First Party shall deposit/transfer Rs.3,50,000/- (Three Lacs Fourty Thousand only) in the Bank Account No. 3340100023941 in Bank of Baroda, Bahraich of Second Party immediately within ten days from today. G) All the parties agree that they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the Criminal Revision No. 1295 of 2023 (Pankaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in terms of this Settlement Agreement. H) That the Second Party has agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the cases filed against each other. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder :- (i) Criminal Case No. 3225 of 2022, 12 of D.V. Act pending before Additional Civil Judge (Pravar Khand)/ACJM, Bahraich. (ii) Case No. 321/11/2021 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. pending before Family Court, Bahraich. (iii) Case Crime No. 137 of 2021 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Pravar Khand)/ACJM, Bahraich. I) The parties have agreed that apart from above mentioned cases, if any other criminal case(s) is/are pending between the parties or their family members with regard to the present dispute, both the parties shall get the same disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement. J) That it is also agreed between the parites that henceforth no case will be institutued by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of present dispute. K) That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, hence for contempt of the Court."

8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can set aside the impugned order, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the revisionist and the private opposite parties and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the revisionist to be prosecuted any further, therefore the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 810/11 of 2023 - Pankaj Singh Vs. Pramila Singh, is hereby set aside, accordingly this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Case called out. No one appears for the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties are present.

2. By means of present revision u/s 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 810/11 of 2023 - Pankaj Singh Vs. Pramila Singh, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 321/11/2021 - Smt. Pramila Singh and Others Vs. Pankaj Singh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Visheshwarganj, District - Bahraich whereby interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of opposite parties.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that this Court by means of order dated 21.02.2024, directed the parties to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court for participating in the mediation process. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation Center on the date fixed and after certain deliberations and discussion the parties arrived at settlement agreement and a report dated 04.04.2024, of the Mediation and Conciliation Center High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed in the aforesaid case may be set aside in view of the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the revisionist as well as opposite party no. 2 have settled the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to litigate any further against the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has no objection in case the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is set aside in the light of the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into settlement agreement and have settled their dispute amicably. The terms of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties dated 04.04.2024, are quoted herein below :- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto : A) That both the parties have agreed to live together, with love, affection, giving due respect to each other and taking good care of each other at the place of the First Party where ever he resides. B) That both the parties have agreed to discharge their matrimonial obligations/duties without any kind of misbehaviour or harassment towards each other as well as each others" family members. C) That the parties have agreed to ensure that their respective family members shall not make undue interference in the matrimonial affairs of the parties. D) That the First Party has agreed to take every care in grooming his child namely Master Kaushik Singh in respect of his schooling, education and future obligations towards his professional settlement with utmost fatherly love and care. E) It has been agreed between the parties that the share of the First Party arising out of ancestral property and arising out of his father's name as well as arising out of his own shall vest with Master Kaushik Singh in accordance with law. F) That it is being agreed between the parties that the First Party shall deposit/transfer Rs.3,50,000/- (Three Lacs Fourty Thousand only) in the Bank Account No. 3340100023941 in Bank of Baroda, Bahraich of Second Party immediately within ten days from today. G) All the parties agree that they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the Criminal Revision No. 1295 of 2023 (Pankaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in terms of this Settlement Agreement. H) That the Second Party has agreed to withdraw/not to pursue the cases filed against each other. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder :- (i) Criminal Case No. 3225 of 2022, 12 of D.V. Act pending before Additional Civil Judge (Pravar Khand)/ACJM, Bahraich. (ii) Case No. 321/11/2021 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. pending before Family Court, Bahraich. (iii) Case Crime No. 137 of 2021 U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Pravar Khand)/ACJM, Bahraich. I) The parties have agreed that apart from above mentioned cases, if any other criminal case(s) is/are pending between the parties or their family members with regard to the present dispute, both the parties shall get the same disposed off in terms of this Settlement Agreement. J) That it is also agreed between the parites that henceforth no case will be institutued by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of present dispute. K) That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, hence for contempt of the Court."

8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can set aside the impugned order, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the revisionist and the private opposite parties and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the revisionist to be prosecuted any further, therefore the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 810/11 of 2023 - Pankaj Singh Vs. Pramila Singh, is hereby set aside, accordingly this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench