SUNITA ATTARY Vs. TARUN ATTARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 2.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The husband Tarun Attary filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Smt. Sunita Attary for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery and on the facts narrated in that petition. In this petition, the wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) praying for the grant of interim maintenance at the rate Rs. 7000/- per month and Rs. 16,000/- on account of litigation expenses. The husband contested the application, while the divorce petition was being contested by the wife.

(2.) HOWEVER , during the course of hearing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, the learned counsel appearing for the husband on 6.3.1998 made the following statement.

(3.) THE question in this case is whether the statement of the learned counsel for the parties recorded on 6.3.1998 and consequential order passed by the Court suffer from any legal infirmities. The answer has to be in the negative. The parties can arrive at a settlement, which is convenient to both of them and regarding which they are at ad-diem (ad-idem ?) A compromise between the parties to pay maintenance from a date prior to the date of institution of the application under Section 24 of the Act cannot be said to be hit by any statutory provisions or opposed to public policy. An application under Section 24 of the Act can be filed where some proceedings are pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, pendency of the proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act is a condition precedent. With regard to the authority of the counsel, I will fully endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge that he had the authority and the statement was made with full responsibility and upon instruction. Even otherwise, such matter is apparently a finding of fact, which does not call for any interference. The statement was made before the learned District Judge and the same Court has not permitted the husband to wriggle out of the statement of the counsel in the garb of correction of an order in relation to the date from which the maintenance is payable. The authority in favour of the counsel binds his client is fully accepted in law. The compromise recorded upon the statement of the counsel has to be enforced on parties to the agreement and none of them can be permitted to wriggle out of the same on flimsy pretext like one taken by the husband in the present case.