List for outcome of mediation before companyrt on 20th November, 2014.
41 of 2014 and finally the applications were partly allowed vide judgment dated 4 th September, 2015, the extract is as under Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant partly succeeds in his appeal.
Defendant No.1 is accordingly directed to vacate the subject property bearing No.
After the matter being heard, a companysent order came to be passed in terms of settlement recorded under Order dated 1st March, 2013 as follows It is thus read as under The appellant states that the accommodation occupied by respondent No.2 at present i.e. Second Floor, M24, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi of two bed rooms fully furnished is acceptable to her for the purpose of her residence and of her children.
56 of 2011 on 15th April, 2011 under Sections 7,8,10 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
It is unfortunate to numberice that because of a warpath of the companyple, both the paternal grandparents died during pendency of the proceedings.
41/2014 and the High Court disposed of the application vide Order dated 25th September, 2014, the relevant extract reads as under In these circumstances, we are companypelled to direct as follows I The parties shall appear before Ms. Veena Ralli Mediator on 27th September, 2014 at 11.30 A.M. in the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of negotiated settlement by mediation.
The order passed by the High Court granting interim mandatory injunction dated 5th February, 2013 came to be challenged by the respondentwife before the Division Bench in FAO OS No.
Issue of maintenance, domestic violence and the matters of custody and visiting rights stands resolved by the companysent order dated 1 st March, 2013.
The natural sequitor is that respondent number 2 will move out of that accommodation within the same period of time.
It manifests from the record that some trivial matrimonial differences cropped up after the second child was born in October, 2008 and it was unfortunate that the parties started making personal allegations and companynter allegations against each other, that forced the appellanthusband to file Guardianship Petition No.
821 of 2011 in September, 2011 on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Simultaneously, appellant filed a separate Divorce Petition bearing HMA No.
129/2013.
The High Court of Delhi, after the matter being heard, passed an Order on 5th February, 2013 granting interim mandatory injunction in favour of the plantifffather directing the defendant number 1 Parul Nahar to vacate the subject property being B197, Greater KailashI, New Delhi and handover the peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff from the date of the order.
The maintenance will companymence from 1st March 2013.
The appellant and respondent No.2 also agree that the issue of visiting rights be settled.
The relevant extract of the order is as under Interim mandatory injunction is therefore granted in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant number1.
It is further agreed that this interim arrangement qua maintenance will companytinue to prevail during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
Since the facts arise are almost companymon in both the appeals, we have numbericed the relevant facts for our companysideration from Civil Appeal SLP C No.
The application was filed by the father of the appellant wherein the High Court directed the appellanthusband to pay Rs.
It was also observed that if the daughter wishes to meet her father, she can do so at her own desire.
6201 of 2016.
B 197, Greater Kailash, PartI, New Delhi and hand over peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of this order.
It is pertinent to mention here that appellant was residing along with his wife Parul Nahar and parents at B197, Greater KailashI, New Delhi but because of companypelling reasons, the appellanthusband and respondentwife had to leave their matrimonial home and they shifted to the rented accommodation at M24, Greater KailashI, New Delhi.
Respondent No.2 will pay appellant maintenance Rs.60,000/ per month inclusive of the children and their education expenses.
When the order of the Court dated 5 th April, 2013 was number carried out by the parties, the appellanthusband approached the Family Court seeking necessary directions of visitation rights which came to be rejected by the Family Court vide Order dated 21 st December, 2013 that came to be challenged before the Delhi High Court in Mat App FC No.
Respondent No.2 undertakes to this companyrt to companytinue to pay the rent, electricity and water charges for the aforesaid premises and ensure that accommodation is available to the appellant and the children.
1.5 lakhs to respondentwife to buy household items and also clarified that the object of the companysent order is clear that is to bring to rest all other issues other than the divorce proceedings which is to be companypleted within one year.
It is thus agreed that the appellant will make available the children to respondent No.2 on every Saturday at 10.00 AM to be brought back at 10.00 AM on the following Sunday.
Defendant No.1 in the meanwhile is also set at liberty to shift to the rented accommodation as offered by defendant No.2 for her exclusive residence along with her children or to accept an amount of Rs.30,000 towards the amount of rent, pending disposal of her maintenance application before the companycerned Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court.
The appellanthusband thereafter filed an application before the Family Court for implementation of the order of the High Court and in its subsequent order, the High Court observed in its Order dated 5th April, 2013 that if there is some problem in working out of the visitation rights in view of the stated approach of the children, directed the parties to settle the matter qua visitation rights before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre by taking assistance of the child psychologist.
The stage reached where the father of the appellant Soumitra Kumar Nahar filed a suit CS OS No.
2795 of 2011 before the High Court of Delhi impleading the appellant and respondent as a party praying for mandatory injunction against the respondent wife from entering into his selfacquired property.
6201 of 2016, a miscellaneous application was filed by the respondent Parul Nahar before the High Court of Delhi of which an order came to be passed on 12th May, 2016 directing Dr. Achal Bhagat Psychotherapist to ascertain the background facts regarding the relationship of the children with their father Soumitra Kumar Nahar and paternal grandparents before they joined the sole custody of their mother.
It is further directed that companycerned Court seized with the petition filed by defendant No.1 under Domestic Violence Act shall decide the interim application of defendant No.1 for the grant of maintenance, which will include her right to a residence in the companymensurate property as per the financial status of defendant No.2, within a period of one month from the date of this order.
Such payment should be made on or before 7th day of each month.
Pending Civil Appeal Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The companysent order of the High Court in terms of the settlement dated 1st March, 2013 was number companyplied with by the respondent wife and she did number vacate the house of father of the appellant husband.
Appellant Soumitra Kumar Nahar and respondent Parul Nahar married as per Hindu rites and customs on 10 th December, 2001.
This companyrse of action being acceptable to respondent No.2, the appellant agrees to move into the accommodation within a period of 15 days from today.
They were blessed with a baby girl Sanjana born out of the wedlock on 24th May, 2005 and a baby boy Shravan was born on 10th October, 2008.
Ajay Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
At the same time, visitation rights to meet the daughter Sanjana were declined.
