Allahabad High Court
Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu vs Pradeep Kumar on 16 December, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 ALLAHABAD 30, 2014 (2) ALL LJ 568 (2015) 112 ALL LR 837, (2015) 112 ALL LR 837
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Judgment reserved on 09.12.2013 Judgment delivered on 16.12.2013 FIRST APPEAL NO.238 OF 2013 Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu vs. Pradeep Kumar Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu, the plaintiff-appellant in person, and Shri B.N. Singh, Advocate for Shri Pradeep Kumar-the respondent-husband, who is also present in chambers.
2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984, arises out of an order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Additional Family Judge/Additional District Judge, Room No.14, Allahabad in Review Petition No.13 of 2012 filed in Matrimonial Suit No.383 of 2011 to review his final order dated 5.3.2012. The Family Judge rejected the review petition to review his order dated 5.3.2012, by which he had accepted the application of divorce by mutual consent filed by both the parties, and had decreed the suit for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a divorce suit No.401 of 2008 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent-husband. A compromise application was filed by the parties in the suit on 19.11.2010, in which both the parties agreed not to initiate any legal procedings against each other and to drop all the civil and criminal cases pending against them. The settlement recorded that the parties were married on 28.11.2004. Since thereafter differences have arisen between the parties on which several suits and proceedings have been filed by the parties against each other. The parties have agreed to get the suit for divorce decreed on the terms that the first party-the husband will deposit Rs. 9 Lacs, in lieu of Stridhan, Jewellery, gifts and maintenance; Rs. 1 lac has been paid in cash to the respondent-wife. After filing of compromise the second party (respondent-wife) will vacate the house; both the parties will get all the cases pending against each other decided in terms of the settlement, and will not take any proceedings against each other. On the deposit of money and the credit thereof in her account their relations as husband and wife will come to an end. The marriage will be disolved after which both the parties will be free to marry according to their wishes. In terms of the settlement dated 19.11.2010 a demand draft No.838219 dated 18.11.2010 of Rs. 9 lacs drawn in favour of the appellant-wife drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Lucknow was deposited by the respondent-husband in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. The amount was to be paid to the appellant-wife on the compliance of the terms and conditions in the settlement, which included decision and withdrawal of all the civil and criminal cases and vacating the house. The compromise recorded that she has been paid Rs.1 lac in cash. The plaintiff-husband deposited Rs. 9 lacs in Court on 18.11.2010. The suit was disposed off on the same day on 19.11.2010, in terms of compromise. The cases were not decided nor withdrawn, nor she vacated the house, alleging that a fraud was played on her in signing on the settlement. She was not paid Rs. 1 lac in cash. She did not want to withdraw Rs. 9 lacs from the Court.
4. Both the parties thereafter filed a fresh application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. It was numbered as Suit No.383 of 2011, dated 20.4.2011.
5. On 11.7.2011 the respondent-husband moved an application in Suit No.401 of 2008 to be given back the demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs as the appellant-wife has not complied with the terms of the settlement and has not withdrawn the cases filed by her, nor she has vacated the house. It was alleged in para-5 of the application that she is going on filing criminal and civil cases against the husand and her in-laws.
6. On 5.3.2012 the Additional Family Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad considered the application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce. He recorded the facts that the parties were married on 28.11.2004 according to Hindu rights in the 'Nanihal' of the appellant-wife at Ghazipur. She stayed with her husband at Allahabad from 29.11.2004 to 20.1.2005, after which she went to her father's house. Her husband brought her back on 2.5.2005. Thereafter differences arose between them on small matters. Her father took her back on 22.11.2005. The father of respondent-husband brought her back to Allahabad on 26.2.2007. The parties could not resolve their differences and in the circumstances, it has become necessary for them to get the marriage dissolved. Both the parties filed their affidavits and examined themselves. After considering the facts and circumstances the Additional Family Judge, Allahabad allowed the application on 5.3.2013 and dissolved the marriage by issuing a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act.
7. The appellant-wife filed a review application No.13 of 2012 in the matrimonial case No.383 of 2011, on the grounds that the parties had entered into a compromise on 19.11.2010 on which the suit No.401 of 2008 was disposed of on the same day in terms of the compromise. The compromise was filed in suit No.401 of 2008 filed by the husband for divorce in which he had agreed that he will pay back Rs. 10 lacs to the wife, which will include her Stridhan and maintenance and on which the suit for divorce may be decreed. She alleged that the compromise was filed by playing fraud upon her inasmuch as Pradeep Kumar-the husband had, after the compromise was accepted, raised objection to the terms and conditions of the compromise. His application was rejected by the Family Judge. She stated that the compromise is null and void as it was never accepted by the husband. The terms of the compromise were against the interest of appellant-wife inasmuch as the amount was to be paid to her after she vacated the portion of the house occupied by her in the house owned by her husband. No such condition was referred to in the application under Section 13-B in Case No.383 of 2011. She has no objection, if the draft of Rs.9 lacs is paid over to her. She, however, stated that her husband and her mother-in-law Manbhawati Devi and father-in-law Ram Dev Vishwakarma had also shown another draft of Rs.1 lac and had promised her that if she signs on the application under Section 13-B, Rs.9 lacs deposited in the Family Court will be transferred to her and that at the time of vacating the house, she will be paid the remaining amount of Rs.1 lac also. Her father-in-law had given a statement to Circle Officer-IVth, that since the respondent-wife did not vacate the house, they (the husband and his father) had encashed the demand draft of Rs.1 lac which was shown to her. In the circumstances, she has not vacated the house and further in the circumstances she may be paid the entire amount of Rs. 9 lacs, which was deposited in the Family Court in her favour and another amount of Rs.1 lac for vacating the house. She prayed for stay of divorce decree during the pendency of the review application. She also prayed for setting aside the order of divorce dated 5.3.2012 and for modifying the order dated 12.3.2012, if the entire amount is given to her, and she is allowed 15 days' time to vacate the house. She also stated that the respondent-husband has kept another woman with him and has one and half years daughter from her. He is illegally living with his second wife and her daughter.
8. The respondent-husband objected to the review application on the ground that the appellant-wife had signed the documents of mutual divorce after considering all the facts and circumstances on her free will. He had deposited Rs. 9 lacs in the Court, which has been credited to the account of Principal Judge, Family Court for her benefit. She had received Rs.1 lac on the same day on 19.11.2010 when she had signed the settlement. It is wrong on her part to say that she has not received Rs.1 lac. She is an Advocate by profession and is practicing in District Court, Allahabad for last five years and has filed several civil and criminal cases against him and his family members and relatives. He further stated that he is agreeable to payment of Rs.9 lacs in her favour provided she vacates the house within 15 days.
9. After hearing the parties the Family Court found that the application under Section 13-B was filed on mutual consent and in which both the parties had agreed that the divorce decree be passed on mutual consent. The marriage has been disolved by the order of the Court dated 5.3.2012 accepting the application under Section 13-B filed jointly by the parties. The respondent-husband has agreed that Rs.9 lacs deposited by bank draft be transferred in her favour. The amount of Rs.9 lacs was agreed to be paid in view of Stridhan, jewellery and the gifts, which were given at the time of marriage and that the amount is liable to be paid after the conditions in the compromise are complied with. In clause no.3 of the settlement she has agreed to vacate the house and to withdraw all the cases.
10. The Family Court further found that the appellant-wife had filed a Writ Petition No.639 of 2012 in the High Court in which an order was passed by the High Court on 12.4.2012 in which it is observed "if the decree of divorce is to be granted on mutual consent upon a compromise arrived at between the parties, then the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and when the Court directs the parties to adhere to the terms of compromise then it cannot be said that there is any error in the order of the court below".
11. The Family Judge, in the circumstances considering the facts of the case and the order of the High Court dated 12.4.2012, which has become final between the parties, rejected the application for review of the judgment.
12. This Court admitted the appeal and issued notices on the stay application on 2.4.2013. The case was adjourned on 28.5.2013, 29.5.2013 and 22.7.2013 and was thereafter nominated to this Court by Hon'ble Chief Justice on 26.7.2013.
13. The Court has passed following orders on 30.5.2013, 8.8.2013, 20.8.2013, 4.9.2013, 4.9.2013, 25.9.2013, 12.11.2013, 18.11.2013 and 9.12.2013. These orders would show the efforts made by the Court to resolve the issues between the parties:-
"Order dated 30.5.2013 Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be kept on the record.
This appeal was admitted on 2nd April, 2013. Notices were issued on the stay application fixing 6th May, 2013. A report has been submitted by the process server that process server went to the residence of the respondent on 4th and 5th May, 2013 and the family members of respondent Pradeep Kumar informed that he is out of station and when come back shall take the notice. The process server also pasted one notice on the spot. In the report of the office dated 27th May, 2013, the entire report of the process server has not been mentioned. The notice having been tendered to the family members of the respondent and having also been pasted, the service is deemed sufficient.
Re: Stay Application The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 5th March, 2012 by which application for divorce between the parties has been allowed. Subsequently an application for review was filed by the appellant in Divorce Petition No.383 of 2011 which has been dismissed on 25th February, 2013.
The appellant who appears in person, has submitted that Divorce Petition No.401 of 2008 was filed by the respondent in which on the basis of compromise between the parties a draft of Rs.9 lacs was to be deposited in the Court. She further stated that an amount of Rs.1 lac was to be given to the appellant in cash. The appellant's case further is that subsequently the said proceedings were got dismissed in default due to non appearance of the husband and on an application filed by the husband under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 decree of divorce was obtained against which the application for review was filed on the ground that the appellant has not been returned STRI DHAN which has been rejected.
A perusal of the materials on record indicates that husband himself has come with the case that in the compromise a draft of Rs.9 lacs was deposited in the family court and an amount of Rs.1 lac was paid in cash. The appellant has pointed out that father of the respondent has already made a statement that payment of Rs.1 lac in cash was never made to the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that although the divorce was granted subject to fulfillment of compromise but the conditions of the compromise were not complied with. It is submitted that the appellant is living in the house of in-laws at House No.967-B, Patel Chauraha, Allahpur, Allahabad where she threatened to be dispossessed without payment of STRI DHAN.
Considering the submissions made by the appellant as well as the materials brought on the record, we are of the view that the appellant has made out prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
In the meantime, we direct the respondent not to dispossess the appellant from the area into her occupation in House No.967-B, Patel Chauraha, Allahpur, Allahabad. We further direct that the Principal Judge, Family Court shall get the bank draft of Rs.9 lac revalidated which was deposited in the Court.
The matter be again listed on 22nd July, 2013.
A copy of this order be sent by the office to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad for taking necessary steps."
"Order dated 8.8.2013 Learned counsel for the opposite party-husband states that the petitioner, who is appearing in person, is not accepting the copy of the counter affidavit. The copy of the counter affidavit has been served on the appellant today in Court. She is allowed week's time to file rejoinder affidavit.
After hearing the parties at some length, we find it appropriate to direct both the appellant and respondent to appear in Court on 20th August. Learned counsel for the respondent husband states that the respondent-husband will be present in Court on 20th August, 2013.
Put up on 20th August, 2013 in the additional cause list."
"Order dated 20.8.2013 In pursuance to the order dated 8.8.2013, the matter was listed today. The Advocates are abstaining from work.
Both the appellant and the respondent appeared in person. We have heard them individually and in joint session from 2.00 p.m. to 3.40 p.m. We also heard Shri Ram Deo Ram Vishwakarma, the father of the respondent.
Put up this matter again on 04.09.2013 to be taken up in chambers at 1.45 p.m."
"Order dated 4.9.2013 After the order earlier passed today was uploaded, it was pointed out by the appellant that the number of demand draft deposited in Family Court, Allahabad is 83819 dated 18.11.2010.
The order dated 4.9.2013 is accordingly corrected to the effect that reference to the demand draft No. 83219 dated 18.11.2010 shall be read as demand draft No. 83819 dated 18.11.2010.
This order will be issued along with copy of order passed earlier today.
The Registrar General of the Court shall communicate both the orders to the Family Court, Allahabad."
"Order dated 4.9.2013 Reference our order dated 20.08.2013.
We again heard the parties today and Sri R.D.R. Vishwakarma, father of Sri Pradeep Kumar - respondent.
From the pleadings, we find that an amount of Rs. 9 lacs was deposited by Sri Pradeep Kumar in Family Court, Allahabad in Matrimonial Case No. 383 of 2011 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. R.U. Rinki Renu) decided on 5.3.2012. The amount of the Rs. 9 lacs, deposited by Sri Pradeep Kumar through demand draft No. 83219 dated 18.11.2010, in the name of Family Court, Allahabad under the compromise, is still under deposit in the Family Court. The review application filed Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu - the opposite party was rejected on 25.02.2013, giving rise to this appeal.
After hearing the parties appearing in person at length in Chamber, we find that the parties are willing to enter into arrangement, which may dispose of this First Appeal and all the cases, which are pending between the parties.
In order to arrive at an effective arrangement between the parties, we direct the Family Court Allahabad to get a demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs prepared in the name of R.U. Rinki Renu from out of Rs.9 lacs deposited by Sri Pradeep Kumar in pursuance of compromise in the Family Court. The demand draft will be sent to the Registrar General of Court, and will be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General of the Court, awaiting decision of this First Appeal.
Put up on 25.09.2013 at 1.45 P.M. in Chamber."
"Order dated 25.9.2013 We have heard Mrs. R.U. Rinki Renu and Shri Pradeep Kumar, the parties appearing in person. Shri R.D. Sharma son of Shri Mangal Dev Sharma, father of the appellant and Shri Ram Dev Ram Vishwakarma, father of respondent are also present.
The Registrar General of the Court has submitted a report dated 18.9.2013 that in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 4.9.2013, a sealed envelop containing a demand draft dated 16.9.2013 of Rs. 9 lacs in the name of R.U. Rinki Renu has been received from the Family Court, Allahabad.
Let the matter come up again on 30.10.2013 at 01.55 PM in chambers. All the persons present today will be present on that date."
"Order dated 12.11.2013 We have heard both the parties at length.
The respondent is also represented by Sri B.N. Singh, Advocate.
Put up this matter on 18.11.2013, at 1.45 PM, in Chamber."
"Order dated 18.11.2013
1.We have heard Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu-the appellant and Shri Pradeep Kumar-the respondent in person. Shri R.D. Sharma-the father of Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu and Shri Ram Dev Ram Vishwakarma-the father of Shri Pradeep Kumar are also present.
2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984 arises out of an order passed by the Family Court, Allahabad rejecting the application filed by the appellant for cancelling the compromise entered into between the parties and to recall the order, by which the compromise application was accepted.
3. On 4.9.2013 we had passed orders directing the Family Court to prepare the demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs, which was deposited in the name of appellant. The Family Court, Allahabad has prepared the demand draft no. 903333 dated 16.9.2013 for Rs. 9 lacs and remitted the same to the Registrar General of the Court.
4. An objection was made by the appellant, that the amount deposited in her favour was lying in the account of the Family Court, Allahabad since November, 2010 on which she will not get any interest. She also claims that the amount of Rs. 9 lacs, which was to be paid to her in pursuance to the alleged compromise in the Family Court, was not given to her.
6. In order to settle the matter we persuaded the parties on which the respondent-husband had agreed to pay Rs. 2 lacs towards the interest as well as the amount on which there is a dispute as to whether it was paid to her in pursuance to the settlement.
7. The appellant is occupying two rooms, kitchen, toilet and bathrooms in the house of respondent-husband. The vacation of that portion has become a bone of contention between the parties. Whereas it is alleged by the respondent, that the appellant had agreed to vacate the house, the appellant was not ready to vacate the house, unless her objections to the compromise are decided and that she is paid the entire 'stridhan'.
8. After some persuasion the parties have agreed to the effect, that the demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs be paid to the appellant, will be handed over to her today. The respondent has deposited Rs. 1, 91,200/- by a demand draft No.849610 dated 16.11.2013 drawn at State Bank of India, Colonelganj in favour of appellant today in Court. This amount is stated to be short by Rs.8800/- for the rent of the accommodation which the respondent has arranged for the appellant. The appellant, however, does not agree to the suitability and fitness of the accommodation, which has been offered at the far end of the city at Chhatnag Road Jhunsi, Allahabad. The respondent, therefore, is required to deposit another amount of Rs.8800/- to make good the balance for depositing a total amount of Rs. 2 lacs in addition of Rs. 9 lacs. The Court has accepted the deposit of Rs.1,91,200/- by demand draft no.849610 dated 16.11.2013 drawn in favour of the appellant at State Bank of India, Colonelganj.
9. On receipt of the demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu-the appellant has agreed that she will vacate the accommodation, which she is occupying in the house of respondent within 15 days from today, subject to the condition, that she gets the entire amount of Rs. 2 lacs on the next date fixed.
10. The entire aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the conditions, which have been provisionally accepted by both the parties, the demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs in deposit with the Registrar General will be handed over to Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu by the Registrar General tomorrow. The demand draft of Rs.1,91,200/- will remain in deposit with the Registrar General. Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu will be entitled to receive the entire amount or Rs. 2 lacs on completion of her undertaking that she will vacate the portion occupied by her in the respondent-house. The respondent-husband will bring the amount of shortfall in the shape of demand draft to be paid to Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu on her vacating the accommodation.
11. It is made clear that in between the parties will maintain good relation. Any complain by the appellant of misbehaviour or harassment will be treated by the Court seriously.
12. Let the matter come up on 9.12.2013 at 01.45 PM in chambers."
"Order dated 9.12.2013 Present R.U. Rinki Renu, the appellant along with her friend Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate. Shri Pradeep Kumar-respondent husband along with his father Shri Ramdev Ram is also present. Shri B.N. Singh, Advocate appears for the respondent.
R.U. Rinki Renu-the appellant wife has received the draft of Rs.9 lacs from the office of the Registrar General, which was transmitted by the Family court, Allahabad to the Registrar General under our orders. She has already encashed the demand draft.
The demand draft of remaining amount of Rs.1,91,200/- was handed over by respondent and was deposited on 18.11.2013, which has been kept with the Registrar General in sealed cover. The respondent husband has produced the demand draft of the remaining amount of Rs.8800/- vide demand draft no.849791 dated 2.12.2013 payable to RU Rinki Renu drawn on the State Bank of India, Colonel Ganj, Allahabad. This demand draft will also be kept with the Registrar General.
The appellant has prayed for some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation, which she is occupying in respondent's house. She has come up with many other prayers over and above the request made by her on the previous dates and has also moved application.
We have heard the parties. The orders are reserved.
Put up for orders on 16.12.2013."
14. The appellant-wife has received a demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs drawn in her favour on 16.9.2013, and admits that she has deposited the draft in her bank in which the amout has been credited. The respondent-husband has deposited a demand draft of Rs.1,91,200/- in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2013 in Court, and a further amount of Rs.8,800/- by demand draft in her favour on 9.12.2013, totalling Rs. 2 lacs. This amount includes the amount of Rs.1 lac on which there was a dispute about its payment in cash to her. The appellant-wife had contended that she has not received the amount. There is no longer any dispute about payment of Rs.1 lac as the amount has been deposited in Court in her favour. Further an amount of Rs. 1 lac was agreed to be paid by the respondent-husband to appellant-wife as interest of Rs. 9 lacs, which was in deposit in the Family Court in her favour since 19.11.2010 without bearing any interest.
15. The respondent-husband has objected to the release of Rs.2 lacs deposited in Court in her favour on the ground that she has not withdrawn civil and criminal cases filed against him and his family members, and has not vacated the two rooms, bath rooms and kitchen, which she is occupying in his house. He submits that the decree of divorce has become final. The review petition has been dismissed and that after receiving Rs. 9 lacs, she must vacate the house immediately and withdraw all the cases before the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lacs is released in her favour.
16. We have heard the appellant-wife in person. She is an Advocate by profession and is practicing in the District Court, Allahabad. She appeared on every date in the Court as well as in chambers whenever the matter was fixed for hearing. Her father had also appeared in the proceedings with her on two dates. He is a retired Bank Manager. He advised his daughter in our presence to accept the entire amount; vacate the rooms in her husband's house and to give a fresh start to her life. The appellant, however, insisted upon providing an alternative accommodation to her and wanted the Court to take action against the husband and in laws for the ill-treatment and harassment caused to her. She has several complaints against her husband and in laws about the manner they have treated her in all these years. They did not allow her to enter the kitchen and did not provide her food. On many occasions they had also stopped the supply of water and closed the toilet for her. She is full of complaint against her husband and in laws, and kept on repeating that a fraud has been played on her in forcing her to accept the terms of the compromise.
17. The compromise was accepted by the Court in Suit No.401 of 2008 after which both the parties agreed to file an application for mutual divorce. In the order of mutual divorce there is no mention of any settlement or payment of any amount. The issue of non-payment of Rs.1 lac; the condition to withdraw the cases and to vacate the house were provided under the settlement dated 19.11.2010, which was accepted by the Court in Suit no.401 of 2008 and on which the said suit was disposed of. It is no longer open for her to re-agitate the question of settlement in this appeal arising out the review application of the order of acceptance of application for divorce on mutual settlement. She had also filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with observations regarding the acceptance of the terms of compromise of her.
18. Now at this stage we find that after the settlement has become final, a sum of Rs.9 lacs has been paid over to her under our orders and a further amount of Rs. 2 lacs has been deposited in her favour by demand drafts in the High Court, which has been kept in the custody of Registrar General of this Court. The only question that remains is the withdrawal of all the civil and criminal cases which the parties have filed against each other and their relatives, and the vacation of the portion occupied by her in the house of her husband.
19. After giving several opportunities to the parties to address us in chambers, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders by which the review petition was rejected. The acceptance of the settlement by the Court in Suit No.401 of 2008 has not been challenged before us. An amount of Rs.1 lac has been deposited in her favour, and thus the dispute of payment of Rs.1 lac in cash under the compromise is no longer an issue before us. A further amount of Rs.1 lac towards interest on Rs. 9 lacs has also been deposited in her favour. In the circumstances, it is now in the fitness of thing that the parties should comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement.
20. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit on 6.12.2013 raising the issues of the validity of compromise and for providing an alternative accommodation to her. She has prayed for a direction to the husband to provide a safe sheltered place where she may shift and further to pass an order to get her a share in the property of her husband so as to enable her to purchase her own house. We find that the prayer of a share in her husband's house after the decree of divorce under Section 13-B, is highly unreasonable. She has received Rs.9 lacs in terms of the compromise and another amount of Rs.2 lacs is lying deposited in her favour in the Court. The prayers are consequently rejected.
21. Since both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed against them, we direct that all the cases, which have been filed by the parties against each other and their parents and relatives, shall be withdrawn by them within a period of one month. If they do not make applications for withdrawal, the Courts concerned will disose off all the cases, which have been filed by them against each other in terms of this judgment.
22. We further direct that as the demand drafts in her favour are valid for three months, the appellant-wife will vacate the portion of her husband's house occupied by her on or before 01.2.2014. After she vacates the house on or before 1.2.2014, she will be at liberty to make an application to the Court on which the Court will issue directions for release the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lacs in her favour.
23. The First Appeal is disposed of with these directions. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Dt.16.12.2013 RKP/