Chandigarh: The Punjab High Court and Haryana have explained that someone, who is a party in a compromise and has received the benefits under the compromise cannot be allowed to pursue the trial of the settlement.
According to the High Court, by raising these claims to violate the settlement, the person will be considered to have harassed the legal process.
“The justice process is sacred.
After this problem is compromised and the description of information / documents, in supporting the compromise submitted before the court will not be located in the mouth of one of the parties to withdraw from the same, more, after taking advantage of the compromise” Judge Vikas Bahl held when he passed the order to reject the petition filed by a little girl through his mother, a resident of Ludhiana.
The applicant has challenged the order on September 14, 2021, where the family court in Ludhiana has fired a petition under the part 125 criminal procedure code for giving maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month.
Minor was born in July 2007 and his parents married in August 2006.
However, because of differences, they had decided to dissolve their marriage.
Marriage ended with reciprocal settlement and formal divorce was given in March 2011.
Women took a request that the cost of living had an increase in request for the number of monthly maintenance of RS 20,000 was rejected by the Ludhiana family court who said that the woman’s statement was recorded in two.
The event and at each of these occasions, he stated that he would remain bound by the provisions of the compromise specifically related to the settlement on his behalf of him and his daughter.
Destresting his request, the Ludhiana family court observed that he had done twice so that it was bound by the terms and conditions as immortalized in reciprocal divorce petitions.
Harmed by this, he has approached HC claiming that living expenses have increased, and thus, the number of Rs 6.5 lakh is not enough to secure it and the future of his daughter.
Very opposed to the request, her ex-husband argued that after the divorce she remarried and had the responsibilities of children and other family members.
Revealing his inability to pay more, he proposed that he had to take a big loan to pay the number of final settlement of Rs 6.5 lakh at the time of divorce.
After hearing all parties, Bahl justice observed that the petition submitted under the 125 CRPC section was nothing but an attempt to reopen the problem that had been resolved.
“In case, the petition is entertained, it will lead to a situation where there is no judicial process that will reach finality, because even after finally compromising this problem and has benefited from it, the parties in the compromise will submit one application or another, To extract more money from other parties.
Even though this court argues that submission of petitions currently below the 125 CRPC section is truly incorporated, this court does not want to impose the cost of the mother because he is responsible for caring for small children, “observing judges while Refuse the petition.