RACHANA MADAN & ANR Vs. SUNIL MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case should go down in history as yet another illustration of how half-baked solutions, with loose ends, brokered by the parties through their counsel in the ongoing proceedings lead to confusion and protracted proceedings. The first petitioner is the estranged wife of the respondent (husband), the second petitioner being their daughter (born on 04.04.1991). The first petitioner (wife) had instituted proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in the year 2007, it having been registered as CC no.358/1. The proceedings have remained unresolved till date, some reasons for this to be traced hereinafter in this order.

(2.) The respondent (husband) resisted the case under DV Act and had challenged its maintainability by Crl.MC. 3071/2008. On 27.05.2009, when the matter came up for hearing, question of expenses of education of the daughter (second petitioner) arose. It appears that the daughter had secured provisional admission to a course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Media and Communication) in the University of Melbourne, Australia. The wife indicated at that stage that the course was of three years' duration, the approximate expenditure required to be incurred being Rs.37 lakhs. The wife had also informed the court that for purposes of securing visa, security to the extent of the above amount will also have to be furnished. The husband submitted an undertaking, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, "to pay the entire fees for the course in Australia". For purposes of security, the parties agreed to work out some long term solution by going in for mediation. The undertaking to foot the expenses towards fees for the above mentioned course in Australia was reiterated on 29.05.2009 and recorded accordingly in the proceedings. The parties were also referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to make attempt to resolve their disputes amicably.

(3.) The issues persisted till the parties agreed to settle amicably by entering into a settlement deed dated 02.06.2011. As per the copy of the said settlement deed, the wife had indicated that the expenditure towards the education of the daughter in Australia was in the region of Rs.37.11 lakhs this including fees and living expenses. It was clearly stated in the settlement deed that husband had already borne substantial part of the said amount, only Rs. 15 lakh remaining to be paid towards the undertaking given by him on such account. The husband agreed, by the said settlement deed dated 02.06.2011, to pay the remaining amount so that the daughter could start the second year study of the three year course, she already having dropped a semester due to non-payment of funds towards her tuition fees.