Case Name: Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
Case No.: 1008/2023.
Dated: 15th May 2024.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction.
Coram: Hon’ble J. B.R. Gavai, J. S.V.N Bhatti, J. Sandeep Mehta.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The said petition was a transfer petition filed by the petitioner (wife) before the family court in Pune, seeking a transfer of the petition on a matrimonial case filed by the respondent (husband) pending before the family court in Varanasi. After initial dismissal and subsequent restoration, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for settlement. The parties arrived at a compromise, and both parties signed the relevant terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
The settled terms for their mutual consent divorce are as follows:
- The husband voluntarily paid Rs. 20 lakhs to the wife’s bank account for their child from March 2020 to October 2023, even during their separation.
- The husband agrees to pay a total alimony of Rs. 1.15 crore to the wife. Rs. 50 lakh was paid on 22.02.2024. The remaining amounts will be paid as follows:
- Rs. 50 lakhs by 31.08.2024
- Rs. 15 lakhs by 31.12.2024
- The wife will retrieve her gold and jewellery from a locker at the Bank of India in Varanasi between the 14th and 20th of March 2024. She will also collect silver items given at the time of marriage from the husband.
The appellant agreed not to claim further maintenance and withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against her husband and his family. The respondent withdrew the matrimonial case, acting on the terms of the settlement.
However, the appellant did not withdraw the said cases and seemed to have resiled from the agreement.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether Trisha Singh could resile from the mediated settlement agreement without justification, after having accepted a significant portion of the alimony and benefited from the withdrawal of Anurag Kumar’s matrimonial case?
- Whether the criminal proceedings could continue in light of the compromise agreement and subsequent events?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Section 9 – Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which allows a spouse to seek the court’s intervention to restore the marital relationship when the other spouse has withdrawn from their society without reasonable cause.
- Section 13B allows for divorce by mutual consent.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3 prescribes the penalty for giving or taking dowry.
- Section 4 prescribes the penalty for demanding dowry.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 498A deals with the cruelty done by a husband or relative of the husband of a woman to her.
- Section 323 prescribes the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 506 deals with the offense of criminal intimidation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 125 provides for the maintenance of the wife, child, and parents.
The Constitution of India
- Article 142 grants the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order to do complete justice.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITONERS
The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner (wife) had stopped communicating with him about how to proceed with the case. The husband who is also the respondent has already withdrawn the matrimonial case as per the settlement agreement. The council agreed that the wife has resiled from the settlement without any justification and disregarded the terms of conditions of the agreement.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
The counsel for respondent argued that their client faithfully fulfilled the obligations outlined in the settlement agreement. This was demonstrated by taking specific actions such as dismissing the matrimonial lawsuit and processing the initial payment of alimony. Furthermore, the respondent committed to continuing these payments, adhering to the schedule outlined in the agreement, contingent upon the legal dissolution of the marriage. The counsel further argued that these actions by the petitioner positioned the husband at a disadvantage. This disadvantage arose because the respondent, relying on her actions, ceased pursuing the matrimonial case and had already disbursed a portion of the alimony to the petitioner, actions that were taken in the belief of and reliance on the settlement agreement’s terms being honoured by all parties involved.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
The court referred to a similar case titled Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others to conclude the case at hand. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the sanctity of settlement agreements arrived through mediation. These agreements are the result of the extensive efforts by the parties and skilled mediators to find a solution, and their integrity must be preserved.
The court scrutinized the conduct of Trisha Singh, the petitioner, who had accepted a portion of the alimony, Rs. 50 lakhs. They stated that the petitioner had taken advantage of the settlement by securing the withdrawal of the matrimonial case. Her subsequent attempt to resign from the agreement without justification was deemed ‘recalcitrant’ and a disregard for the terms agreed upon before the mediator.
The court noted that Anurag Kumar, the respondent, had been put at a grave disadvantage due to the petitioner’s conduct. The respondent had acted in good faith by withdrawing his matrimonial case and paying a substantial portion of the alimony in compliance with the settlement, which the petitioner breached.
The Supreme Court observed that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down and thus invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. However, the Court made it clear that the respondent is still obligated to make the remaining alimony payments, as per the terms of the settlement agreement. The Court further instructed the disposal of pending applications.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar reinforced the sanctity of mediation and settled agreements. It enables the parties entering into mediated settlements to have confidence in the enforceability of such agreements, fostering a favourable environment for resolving disputes amicably. It serves as a deterrent against parties attempting to refrain from such agreements without justifiable cause. It emphasizes the credibility and enforceability of mediated settlements. Thus, setting a precedent against the misuse of criminal proceedings and settled agreements for personal vendettas in disputes.
Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.
Click here to read full judgement
