The respondents filed a suit in 1998 alleging that the appellants failed to discharge their obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement and in the suit the Memorandum of Settlement was sought to be specifically enforced.
As regards custody of the second respondent, it was agreed that she would stay with the mother.
The appellants herein are defendants in Suit No.
The appellants were also directed to deposit the school fee and other charges in companynection with the education of the second respondent.
This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants before the Division Bench.
1419 of 2000, preferred against an interim order dated 28.10.1998 passed earlier by a learned Single Judge.
The facts in brief are as under.
The first respondent along with second respondent left the matrimonial home at Vasant Vihar and started living with her parents.
The second respondent is their daughter born on 18.3.1991.
The appellants do number dispute the genuineness of the agreement.
The respondents moved for an interim direction and the learned Single Judge, by an elaborate order, held that the plaintiff respondents were entitled to get interim maintenance Rs.40,000/ per month.
By this interim order, the appellants were also directed to provide a house to the respondents in terms of clause 4 of the Memo of Settlement.
There was numberpossibility of any reconciliation between the parties and the relationship companytinued to be sour.
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 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 and satisfy her mother that every dispute was settled.
The first appellant, on the other hand, would say that on arrival from abroad the first respondent went straight to her parents house.
The interim direction passed by the learned Single Judge was directed to be companyplied with by the appellants.
The Division Bench elaborately companysidered the matter and held that numberinterference was called for.
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 number want to companytinue the marital relations.
All the appellants herein signed the agreement.
A true companyy of the agreement is produced as Annexure P 7.
Some other prayers sought for by the respondents were declined to be granted as interim arrangement for the respondents.
D E R G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
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.
It has been companytended 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 number liable to be specifically enforced as the appellants had signed the same under duress and number with free companysent.
The appellants herein were also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance from January 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998 Rs.40,000/ per month and the total amount thus payable was Rs.8,40,000/ .
According to the first appellant, the agreement signed by him on 4.11.1994 was number intended to be acted upon and it was merely a paper transaction.
The first appellant, Ravi Singhal, married the first respondent on 10.2.1989.
These appeals are filed against judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed 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.
After the marriage, the first respondent was staying with the appellants in her matrimonial home at Vasant Vihar in New Delhi.
2583 of 1997 on the file of original jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, having been filed by the respondents herein for the enforcement of an alleged Family Settlement entered into between the parties on 4.11.1994.
