SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length.

(2.) THE record of the Court unimpeachably states that there was no condition upon the non -applicants (wife and children) to go and stay with the applicant -husband, as the case may be. Once there is written compromise between the parties, the Court is bound to adopt the same and not accept the attendant circumstances on which the parties might have signed the said agreement. The agreement between the parties is specifically silent and does not impose any obligation upon the non -applicants to go and cohabit together at Delhi, especially when they are fully settled and are doing their job at Chandigarh. However, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the non -applicants, upon instructions from them, who are present in Court, stated that in order to protect the interest of the girl and her wedding expenses and also to protect the interest of the younger son in relation to his employment, they would deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in F.D.R. till the marriage of girl. The said amount shall be deposited out of the entire consideration and the interest accruing therefrom shall be spent by the mother for the welfare of the children. Remaining amount will be shared between the parties as per their share and they are free to spend their money as per their choice with the concession given by the learned Counsel that sons would go and visit the father as and when it is possible for them. In view of the concession given now by the learned Counsel, upon instructions from their clients, no further order is called for on this application and the same is dismissed as such.