# Khajanchi v. Preete

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 38
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-11
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 27 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khajanchi-v-preete-53088
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Sections 13 & 13B - Divorce - Appeal
against dismissal of divorce petition by
Family Court - Long separation and
absence of cohabitation - Settlement
arrived
at
before
Mediation
and
Conciliation
Centre
-
Payment
of
permanent
alimony
completed
-
All
pending
litigations
agreed
to
be
withdrawn - No further claims to be
raised - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 89(2)(d), Order XXIII Rule 3 -
Mediation - Court empowered to pass
decree based on voluntary and lawful
mediated settlement - Satisfaction of
statutory requirements under CPC and
Mediation Rules - Decree of divorce
rightly passed on basis of compromise-
U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2009
- Rule 26 - Settlement recorded by
Mediation Centre found to be voluntary
and non-collusive - Court satisfied before
passing decree-Held, decree of divorce by
mutual consent granted in terms of
Settlement Agreement - Appeal allowed.
(Paras 10 to 14)

HELD:
In this regard, this Court is guided by Section
89(2)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
which St.s that where a dispute has been
referred for mediation, the mediator will assist
the parties in reaching a settlement, and if a
settlement is arrived at, the Court may pass a
decree in accordance with its terms. This
ensures that mediated settlements have legal
enforceability and enables courts to grant
decrees based on mutually agreed terms,
3 All. Khajanchi Vs. Preete
39
thereby
promoting
amicable
dispute
resolution.... (para 10)

Additionally, Rule 26 of the U.P. Civil Procedure
Mediation Rules, 2009, mandates that the Court
ensure the settlement is not collusive and has
been arrived at voluntarily.... (Para 11)

In the present case, both parties have amicably
resolved and settled all pending cases and
consideration has also been exchanged between
them as per the Settlement Agreement dated
07.04.2022, executed before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court. Upon perusal
of the said agreement and after considering the
submissions made by the learned counsels for
the parties, this Court is satisfied that the
settlement is bonafide and voluntary. The only
thing now remaining is the passing of a decree
of divorce between the parties. (Para 12)

In this regard, this Court is also guided by Order
XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 which allows compromise of suits,
provided that such compromise is in writing and
signed by the parties. It is evident from the
records of the case before this Court that the
Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022 fulfills
these requirements and has been entered into
voluntarily by the parties. As per this provision,
the Court is bound to record the agreement and
pass a decree in accordance with it.... (Para 13)

Since the settlement is bona fide and has been
acted upon by both parties, this Court, in the
exercise of its powers under Order XXIII Rule 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is
competent to pass a decree in terms of the
settlement, even beyond the scope of the
original suit. Furthermore, as the proceedings
arise from the Family Court, this Court is also
empowered to grant a decree of divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
light of the settlement, as recognized under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code, 1908. (Para 14)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

## Text

38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. With the aforesaid the appeal is
partly allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 10.03.2023 and award
dated 13.03.2023 passed in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.287 of 2017; Aman
Kumar Versus Arun Kumar and others by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hardoi is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the concerned Tribunal to
decide the claim petition afresh in the light
of the above observations/directions.

25. Since the matter is of the year
2017, this court deems it appropriate to
direct to the Tribunal to decide the claim
petition afresh expeditiously and preferably
within a period of four months from the
date fixed before the Tribunal in this order
for appearance of the parties without
granting unnecessary adjournment to either
of the parties.

26. The parties shall appear before
the concerned Tribunal on 24th of March,
2025.

27. The statutory deposit made
before this court and any other amount
under any order passed by this court shall
be remitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith and in any case within a period of
four weeks from today, the disbursement of
which shall abide by the fresh decision
taken by the Tribunal.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 38
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

First Appeal No. 27 of 2018
Khajanchi ...Appellant
Versus
Preete ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Umesh Chandra Saxena, Santosh Kumar
Maurya

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sanjay Kumar Patel (S.K.), Shrawan Kumar
Verma)

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Sections 13 & 13B - Divorce - Appeal
against dismissal of divorce petition by
Family Court - Long separation and
absence of cohabitation - Settlement
arrived
at
before
Mediation
and
Conciliation
Centre
-
Payment
of
permanent
alimony
completed
-
All
pending
litigations
agreed
to
be
withdrawn - No further claims to be
raised - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 89(2)(d), Order XXIII Rule 3 -
Mediation - Court empowered to pass
decree based on voluntary and lawful
mediated settlement - Satisfaction of
statutory requirements under CPC and
Mediation Rules - Decree of divorce
rightly passed on basis of compromise-
U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2009
- Rule 26 - Settlement recorded by
Mediation Centre found to be voluntary
and non-collusive - Court satisfied before
passing decree-Held, decree of divorce by
mutual consent granted in terms of
Settlement Agreement - Appeal allowed.
(Paras 10 to 14)

HELD:
In this regard, this Court is guided by Section
89(2)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
which St.s that where a dispute has been
referred for mediation, the mediator will assist
the parties in reaching a settlement, and if a
settlement is arrived at, the Court may pass a
decree in accordance with its terms. This
ensures that mediated settlements have legal
enforceability and enables courts to grant
decrees based on mutually agreed terms,
3 All. Khajanchi Vs. Preete
39
thereby
promoting
amicable
dispute
resolution.... (para 10)

Additionally, Rule 26 of the U.P. Civil Procedure
Mediation Rules, 2009, mandates that the Court
ensure the settlement is not collusive and has
been arrived at voluntarily.... (Para 11)

In the present case, both parties have amicably
resolved and settled all pending cases and
consideration has also been exchanged between
them as per the Settlement Agreement dated
07.04.2022, executed before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court. Upon perusal
of the said agreement and after considering the
submissions made by the learned counsels for
the parties, this Court is satisfied that the
settlement is bonafide and voluntary. The only
thing now remaining is the passing of a decree
of divorce between the parties. (Para 12)

In this regard, this Court is also guided by Order
XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 which allows compromise of suits,
provided that such compromise is in writing and
signed by the parties. It is evident from the
records of the case before this Court that the
Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022 fulfills
these requirements and has been entered into
voluntarily by the parties. As per this provision,
the Court is bound to record the agreement and
pass a decree in accordance with it.... (Para 13)

Since the settlement is bona fide and has been
acted upon by both parties, this Court, in the
exercise of its powers under Order XXIII Rule 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is
competent to pass a decree in terms of the
settlement, even beyond the scope of the
original suit. Furthermore, as the proceedings
arise from the Family Court, this Court is also
empowered to grant a decree of divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
light of the settlement, as recognized under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code, 1908. (Para 14)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.
&
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1)
Heard
Sri
Dev
Prakash
Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Umesh Chandra Saxena, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Kumar
Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Shrawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel
for the respondent as well as perused the
record.

(2) The instant First Appeal under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 arises out of judgment and order
dated 13.02.2018 passed by learned Family
Court/Additional District and Sessions
Judge/F.T.C. Lakhimpur Kheri in H.M.
Case No.61 of 2013 (Khajanchi Vs.
Preete), whereby the suit for Divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

(3) We have heard the learned
counsel for both parties and have carefully
reviewed the records. Brief facts of the
present case are that in the year 2006,
marriage between appellant/Khajanchi and
respondent/Preete was solemnized as per
Hindu Rites and Rituals. Shortly after the
marriage, the respondent began frequently
visiting and staying at her parental home.
The
appellant
contended
that
the
respondent failed to fulfill her marital
duties and had refused to cohabit with him
due to health reason.

(4)
Subsequently,
the
matrimonial relationship between the
parties became strained. On 12.01.2013,
the respondent left the matrimonial
home and has since been residing with
her parents. Despite the appellant's
repeated efforts to reconcile and provide
support, the respondent chose to remain
absent from the matrimonial home,
prompting the appellant to file for
divorce.
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(5) The appellant's suit for divorce,
registered as H.M. Case No. 61 of 2013,
was on the ground that the parties had been
living separately for a prolonged period,
and that the respondent had refused to
fulfill her marital duties. However, the
learned Family Court dismissed the divorce
petition by its order dated 13.02.2018,
finding that the grounds for divorce were
not substantiated.

(6) The appellant, aggrieved by the
dismissal order dated 13.02.2018, has
preferred this First Appeal seeking relief
against the Family Court's decision.

(7) On 20.09.2019, the matter was
referred to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court.

(8) In pursuance of the aforesaid
order dated 20.09.2019, both the parties
appeared
before
the
Mediation
and
Conciliation Centre of this Court for
amicable settlement of their dispute. The
learned Mediator has sent a report dated
07.04.2022 along with agreement between
the parties, stating that the mediation
proceedings have been completed and an
agreement is reached between the parties
which is enclosed. The relevant portion of
the agreement is being quoted hereunder:-

"The following settlement has
been arrived at between the Parties
hereto:

A) That both the parties have
agreed to resolve their dispute by way of
one time settlement which is quantified for
Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only) as mutually agreed in lieu
of permanent alimony to be paid by Mr.
Khajanchi (Husband/First Party) to Ms.
Preete (Wife/Second Party).

B) That both the parties have
agreed that they shall not raise any claim
of any sort against each other in future in
respect of any right arising out of the
marriage which is being dissolved through
this settlement.

C) That out of the entire amount
of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only), a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Tewnty Five Thousand
only) has been received by Ms. Preete
(Wife/ Second Party) by way of a Demand
Draft bearing no. 000076 dated 22.03.2022
issued in the name of Priti Devi (name is as
per passbook) from AXIS BANK Branch at
Bhandsaria Kher UP on 31.03.2022 and
rest of the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Tewnty Five Thousand
only) is paid today i.e. 07.04.2022 by the
First Party to the Second Party by way of
Demand Draft bearing no. 000077 dated
05.04.2022 issued in the name of Priti Devi
from AXIS BANK, Branch at Bhandsaria
Kher UP.

D) That the Second Party has
agreed to get the marriage dissolved in the
light of this agreement so mutually arrived
at between the parties.

E) That both the parties have
agreed
to
withdraw/not
press/to
get
decided all the cases filed against each
other in terms of present agreement, the
details of which are as under:

1. Crl. Case No. 639 of 2018 U/S
125 Cr. P. C. (Preete Vs. Khajanchi)
pending before Addll. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri.

Besides the above if any other
case is pending or filed between both the
parties the same shall be withdrawn by
either of the concerned parties.

\F) That it is also agreed between
the parties that neither they themselves nor
any member of their respective families
shall institute any malicious prosecution, in
3 All. Khajanchi Vs. Preete
41
the
form
of
any
criminal or
civil
proceedings against each other, or any of
their relative or family members, in future
in respect to the present dispute or any
matter incidental there to and if any
proceeding has already been initiated the
same would stand disposed off in terms of
this Settlement Agreement.

G)
That
both
the
parties
understand,
agree
and
further
bind
themselves that if either of the parties
rescinds or does not follow the conditions
stipulated herein above, such act shall
entail for appropriate legal action.

By signing this agreement the
parties hereto state that they have no
further claims or demands against each
other with respect to First Appeal No. 27 of
2018 (Khajanchi Vs. Preete) and all
disputes and difference in this regard have
been amicably settled by the parties hereto
through the process of Conciliation/
Mediation."

(9) In light of the aforementioned
facts, learned counsel for the parties, after
consulting their respective clients, submit
that the present case may be disposed of in
terms of the compromise dated 07.04.2022,
referred to as the "Settlement Agreement,"
which was duly executed before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court. They further stated that rest of the
terms of the compromise are already
complied with by the parties.

(10) In this regard, this Court is
guided by Section 89(2)(d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that
where a dispute has been referred for
mediation, the mediator will assist the
parties in reaching a settlement, and if a
settlement is arrived at, the Court may pass
a decree in accordance with its terms. This
ensures that mediated settlements have
legal enforceability and enables courts to
grant decrees based on mutually agreed
terms, thereby promoting amicable dispute
resolution. The relevant provision is
reproduced below:

"Section
89.
Settlement
of
disputes outside the Court:

(2) Where a dispute has been
referred- (d )for mediation, the Court shall
effect a compromise between the parties
and shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed."

(11) Additionally, Rule 26 of the
U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation Rules,
2009, mandates that the Court ensure the
settlement is not collusive and has been
arrived
at
voluntarily.
The
relevant
provision is reproduced below:

"U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation
Rules, 2009

Rule 26 . Court to fix a date for
recording settlement and passing decree: -
On the parties appearing before the Court
on the dale fixed by the mediator, or such
other day, not being beyond seven days
from the date fixed by the mediator, the
Court concerned shall hear the parties and
if it is satisfied that the parties have settled
their disputes voluntarily and that the
settlement is not collusive, then it shall pass
a decree in accordance with the settlement
so recorded, if the settlement disposes of all
the issues in the suit.

(i) If the settlement disposes of
only certain issues arising in the suit or
proceeding, the Court shall record the
settlement in respect of those issues if they
arc severable from other issues and if a
decree could be passed to the extent of the
settlement covered by those issues, then the
Court may pass a decree straightaway in
accordance with the settlement on those
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issues without waiting for a decision of the
Court on the other issues which are not
settled.

(ii) If the issues are not severable,
then in that event, the Court shall wail for a
decision of the Court on the other issues,
which are not settled."

(12) In the present case, both
parties have amicably resolved and settled
all pending cases and consideration has
also been exchanged between them as per
the
Settlement
Agreement
dated
07.04.2022, executed before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Upon
perusal of the said agreement and after
considering the submissions made by the
learned counsels for the parties, this Court
is satisfied that the settlement is bonafide
and voluntary. The only thing now
remaining is the passing of a decree of
divorce between the parties.

(13) In this regard, this Court is
also guided by Order XXIII Rule 3 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which
allows compromise of suits, provided that
such compromise is in writing and signed
by the parties. It is evident from the records
of the case before this Court that the
Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022
fulfills these requirements and has been
entered into voluntarily by the parties. As
per this provision, the Court is bound to
record the agreement and pass a decree in
accordance with it. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of
the CPC is being reproduced below:

 "3. Compromise of suit.- Where
it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in
part
by
any
lawful
agreement
or
compromise (in writing and signed by the
parties), or where the defendant satisfies
the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any
part of the subject-matter of the suit, the
Court
shall
order
such
agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be recorded,
and shall pass a decree in accordance
therewith (so far as it relates to the parties
to the suit, whether or not the subjectmatter of the agreement, compromise or
satisfaction is the same as the subjectmatter of the suit).

(14) Since the settlement is bona
fide and has been acted upon by both
parties, this Court, in the exercise of its
powers under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
1908,
is
competent to pass a decree in terms of the
settlement, even beyond the scope of the
original
suit.
Furthermore,
as
the
proceedings arise from the Family Court,
this Court is also empowered to grant a
decree of divorce under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in light of the
settlement, as recognized under Order
XXIII Rule 3 of Code, 1908.

(15) As all proceedings between
the parties have already been settled and
the agreed monetary consideration has been
exchanged, the only remaining formality is
the granting of a decree in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, in
the interest of justice and to avoid
unnecessarily prolonging the litigation, this
Court allows the appeal in terms of the
Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022.

(16) Accordingly, a decree of
divorce by mutual consent under Section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is
granted to the parties as per the terms of the
Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022
entered into by the parties, executed before
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of
this Court. No further claims beyond the
agreement shall be entertained between the
3 All. Kapil Kasana Vs. Union of India & Ors.
43
parties
concerning
their
matrimonial relationship.

(17) First Appeal is allowed in
terms of the above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 43
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 384 of 2024

Kapil Kasana ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava, Ms. Katyaini Singh,
Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Sri Pratik Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., G.A., Sri Prem Narayan Rai

Criminal Law - National Security Act, 1980
- Section 3 (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 404 -
Against detention order - Due to animosity
of Gram Pradhan election, petitioner along
with other associates committed murder
of brother of informant, by firing upon him
at public place carrying arms - Taking
cognizance,
proceedings
under
NSA
started
against
all
accused
persons
including petitioner - Held, in some cases,
detenue has been acquitted whereas in
some cases police found no evidence,
resulted into submission of closure reports
- After getting acquittal in four cases in
2010, no crime committed by detenue up
to 2019, hence for period of 9 years
detenue never indulged in anti-social
activities
-
Investigating
Officer
mentioned about disturbance of law and
order but such St.ments not given by
informant and eye witnesses - Authority
failed to find nexus between alleged
offences and order of detention. (Para 14,
23, 26, 27)

Apprehension of D.M. that detenue who
was detained in jail, likely to get bail soon
and further satisfaction that he may be
involved
in
activities
prejudicial
to
maintenance of public order has no
rational basis - Impugned order quashed.
(Para 33)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nenavath Bujji Vs The St. of Telangana &
ors., 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 265

2. Rameshwar Shaw Vs D.M., Burdwan & anr.,
1963 0 Supreme (SC) 221, (Paras 9, 10)

3. Ramesh Yadav Vs D.M., Etah & ors., 1985 0
Supreme (SC) 301

4. Shashi Aggarwal Vs St. of U.P., 1988 LawSuit
(SC) 12

5. Veeri Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2016 0 Supreme
(All) 714

6. Alijan Mian Vs D.M., Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC
1130

7. Ramesh Yadav Vs D.M., Etah, AIR 1986 SC
315

8. Pushkar Mukherjee Vs St. of W.B., (1969) 1
SCC 10, (Para 13)

9. Khudiram Das Vs St. of Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC
81, (Para 52)

10. Kamarunnissa Vs U.O.I.& anr. 1990 (27) ACC
621 SC, (Para 13)

11. Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Vs St. of
Manipur & ors., Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2012
decided on 4.1.2012

12. Vijay Narain Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (1984) 3
SCC 14