1998 (10) TMI 544 - HC - Indian Laws

Family Settlement Validated, Maintenance Awarded, Mis-Joinder Dismissed, Plaint Upheld

The court upheld the validity of the family settlement dated November 4, 1994, finding it binding and enforceable. It ruled that the defendants had the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the family settlement dated November 4, 1994.2. Financial capacity of the defendants to pay maintenance.3. Mis-joinder of causes of action.4. Recall of the order dated December 15, 1997.5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Family Settlement:The defendants argued that the family settlement dated November 4, 1994, was a nullity due to coercion, undue influence, and duress. They claimed it was signed under emotional blackmail because the plaintiff's mother was critically ill. However, the court found that the settlement bore the signatures of all defendants, and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was filled by defendant No.1 himself. The presence of both parties during the signing indicated no coercion. Letters exchanged between the parties further demonstrated that the settlement was made willingly to avoid family conflicts, making it binding and enforceable. The court emphasized that family settlements are valid and enforceable if made honestly, even if based on mistaken beliefs about rights.2. Financial Capacity of the Defendants:The defendants contended they were not financially capable of paying Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance. The plaintiffs countered by detailing the defendants' substantial properties and businesses, showing their financial capability. The court noted that the defendants had been making payments until December 1996, indicating their capacity to pay. The income tax returns submitted by the defendants were found to be unreliable. Even based on the defendants' own financial disclosures, their annual income was sufficient to cover the maintenance amount. The court concluded that the defendants had the financial capacity to comply with the settlement terms.3. Mis-joinder of Causes of Action:The defendants argued that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of causes of action. However, the court had already granted permission to the plaintiffs to file the suit on the basis of different causes of action in an order dated December 15, 1997. Therefore, this argument was no longer available to the defendants.4. Recall of the Order Dated December 15, 1997:The defendants sought to recall the order directing them to disclose details of their properties and interests. The court noted that defendant No.1 had complied fully, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had also complied to a considerable extent. No valid reason was provided for recalling the order. Consequently, the application to recall the order was rejected.5. Rejection of the Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also dismissed. The court found that the arguments presented by the defendants did not warrant the rejection of the plaint.Conclusion:The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month as per the family settlement dated November 4, 1994. The defendants were directed to clear the arrears of maintenance from January 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998, amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- within two months. Future maintenance was to be paid monthly. The defendants were also directed to pay the school fees and other charges for plaintiff No.2 directly to the school and provide a residence to the plaintiffs as per the settlement within two months. Some prayers were rejected as they did not arise from the settlement, and others had already been addressed in a previous order.