LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-91

B. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. S. SARASWATHY

Decided On July 27, 2017
B. VIJAYAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
S. Saraswathy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 07.04.2006, passed in I.A.No.276 of 2005 in H.M.O.P. No.8 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, the civil revision petition has been preferred invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I.A.No.276 of 2005 has been preferred by the respondent herein under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for an order awarding Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony and maintenance as agreed by the revision petitioner in the joint memo of compromise, dated 24.03.2005, filed before the Court and directing him and his men to discharge the fixed deposit receipt and pay the same to her.

(3.) As seen from the case of the respondent herein in the above said application, she has preferred a petition for divorce against the revision petitioner and as the revision petitioner had agreed for compromise to get divorce, the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing and as per the terms of the said compromise, the revision petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lump sum towards the future maintenance of the respondent and it is also found that the amount was deposited in the Bank in the name of two persons and it was mutually agreed that after the order of divorce, the amount deposited in the Bank should be appropriated with all interest by the respondent herein. Accordingly, it is the case of the respondent herein that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner had been dissolved on 24.03.2005 and when she had approached the revision petitioner to discharge the fixed deposit and pay the said lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards her future maintenance, it is stated that on some pretext or the other, the revision petitioner is avoiding the payment and inasmuch as the revision petitioner herein is liable to pay the amount after discharging the fixed deposit and inasmuch as the revision petitioner had failed to do so by honouring the terms of the compromise, she has been necessitated to lay the application.