Supreme Court of India
Mamta Goyal vs Ramgopal on 4 May, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2016 SC 89
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Kurian Joseph
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6905 OF 2012
MAMTA GOYAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMGOPAL Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. SLP (Crl.) No. 8139 of 2015 titled as "Mamta Goyal Vs. Ramgopal" is taken on record.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of judicature at Jaipur dated 25.02.2011, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein, against the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the District Judge, Dholpur, was dismissed, thereby confirming the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
3. Today, both the parties are personally present in Court, assisted by their respective counsel. It is agreed before us by the parties and their respective counsel that by way of full and final settlement of all the claims due to the appellant, except the dispute with regard to Stridhan, which is the subject matter of Civil First Appeal No. 221 of 2014 pending before the High Court of judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur, all other claims can be settled.
4. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of as compromised between the parties and resultantly, the following orders are passed :-
(i) The respondent - Ramgopal shall pay an amount of Rs. 5.50 Lakhs by way of a Demand Draft drawn in the name of appellant within three months from today.
(ii) SLP (Crl.) No. 8139 of 2015, which is taken on board today, which is a dispute pertaining to the claim for maintenance, is, accordingly, dismissed.
iii) Crl. Revision Petition No. 1553 of 2014 pending before the High Court of judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur filed by the appellant shall stand dismissed. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this Judgment to the High Court forthwith.
iv) FIR No. 67 of 1999 on the file of Police Station Basedi, District Dholpur, Rajasthan, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 341 I.P.C. is quashed.
4. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid as above, apart from the liability to answer for contempt, the respondent will also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 25%.
No costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
May 04, 2016.