<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (10) TMI 544 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197474</link>
    <description>A bona fide family settlement signed to resolve matrimonial discord was found valid and enforceable because the record did not support coercion, undue influence or duress, and the correspondence showed voluntary settlement for family peace. The Court treated amity, goodwill and final resolution of disputes as lawful consideration and accepted that the defendants&#039; financial material did not displace the prima facie case on maintenance. The objections seeking rejection of the plaint and recall of the earlier order failed because misjoinder was no longer available after joinder had already been permitted, and no sufficient ground was shown for recall. The maintenance arrangement was upheld and the procedural applications were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 14:57:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 544 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197474</link>
      <description>A bona fide family settlement signed to resolve matrimonial discord was found valid and enforceable because the record did not support coercion, undue influence or duress, and the correspondence showed voluntary settlement for family peace. The Court treated amity, goodwill and final resolution of disputes as lawful consideration and accepted that the defendants&#039; financial material did not displace the prima facie case on maintenance. The objections seeking rejection of the plaint and recall of the earlier order failed because misjoinder was no longer available after joinder had already been permitted, and no sufficient ground was shown for recall. The maintenance arrangement was upheld and the procedural applications were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>