- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1221 OF 2024 (FC) BETWEEN SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI R D/O S RAJAGOPALAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.23062 TOWER 23, PRESTIGE FERNS RESIDENCY HARALURU MAIN ROAD AMBALIPURA, BENGALURU-560102 EARLIER ADDRESS- R/A P1, 25TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560078 ...APPELLANT (BY SMT S SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SOMANATHA H, ADVOCATE) AND SRI.C.L. BALAJI S/O C L NARASIMHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 3 GRACE PARK MANOR GRACE PARK ROAD, DRUMCONDRA DUBLIN, D09TN12, IRELAND EMAIL ID-Balaji.c.l@accenture.com PH NO. +353 (87) 3316280 ALSO AT FLAT NO.A502 MANTRI TRANQUIL, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU 560004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANJUNATHA S AND MS. VIMALA PINTO, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DT 03.01.2024 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 36 R/W ORDER 21 RULE 10 OF CPC, R/W SECTION 28(A) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 19841 calling in question the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Execution Petition No.30/2022 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru2. 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their status in their relationship for the sake of convenience. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.05.2000 at Dwarka Choultry, Basavanagudi, K.R Road, Bengaluru, and from the wedlock, a son by name 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Executing Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 Aarav C. Balaji is born to the parties. Due to various reasons the parties were unable to continue their marital relationship. As a result, they filed M.C.No.3644/2013 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19553 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. A compromise petition dated 29.08.2015 was filed setting out the terms under which the parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage, consequent to which, a decree dated 29.08.2015 is passed in terms of the said compromise. 4. The wife, alleging non-compliance of the terms of the compromise so far it relates to the husband being liable to pay 20% of his annual income in order to maintain their son, filed Execution Petition No.30/2022. The husband entered appearance in the Execution proceedings and contested the same. The Executing Court by its order dated 03.01.2024, dismissed the Execution Petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the wife. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S Susheela, appearing along with learned counsel Sri. Somanatha H, for the 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘HM Act’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 wife contends that clauses 8 to 10 of the compromise petition clearly indicate that the husband had undertaken to pay a sum of `2,20,00,000/- (Two crore twenty lakhs) towards maintenance of their son, as also agreed to pay 20% of his annual income inclusive of monthly salary, bonus, stock options, etc. It is further contended that clause 8 pertains to the payment of ₹2,20,00,000/-, clause 9 pertains to the payment of 20% of the annual income of the husband and clause 10 stipulated that the husband was required to pay 20% of his annual income in addition to the agreed sum of `2,20,00,000/-. Reference is also made by the learned Senior Counsel to the income tax returns of the husband and it was contended that clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the compromise petition have to be read comprehensively and that an earlier clause will prevail if a later clause is in derogation of the earlier clause. Hence, it is contended that the Executing Court erred in rejecting the Execution Petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. George Joseph, appearing for the husband contends that there is no conflict in the clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the compromise petition and that clause 9 was required to operate only till ₹1,00,00,000/- was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 paid by the husband out of agreed sum of `2,20,00,000/-. It is further contended that the income tax returns produced along with the statement of objections clearly indicate that the husband liquidated various properties for the purpose of paying the said sum of `2,20,00,000/-. It is also contended that the husband paid the last installment of the agreed amount of ₹2,20,00,000/- on 28.07.2017 and the Execution Petition was filed on 09.03.2022. Referring to the said period, learned counsel contends that the delay in the wife demanding the alleged payment of 20% is indicative of the fact that it was not originally agreed between the parties and the claim of 20% of the annual income is only an after thought. It is further contended that the Executing Court has rightly considered the factual aspect of the matter and dismissed the Execution Petition, which order is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 7. The submissions of both learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 8. The question that arises for consideration is: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 ‘whether the Executing Court was justified in holding that the respondent – husband was not liable to pay 20% of his annual income as claimed and dismissing the Execution Petition?’ Analysis 9. The essential fact situation is undisputed insofar as the matrimonial relationship of the parties, that a son was born to them from their marriage, that their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in terms of the compromise petition dated 29.08.2015. The contentious clauses in the compromise are clauses 8, 9 and 10 which read as under: “8. The first petitioner has agreed to give `2,20,00,000/- (Rupees Two crore twenty lakhs only) to the second petitioner towards maintenance to his minor son which shall be paid by disposing first petitioner’s immovable property which are sated as detailed here under: a. The first Petitioner agreed to pay `50,00,000/- towards part of `2,20,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2015. b. The second installment of `50,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2016. c. The third installment amount of `50,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2016 and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 remaining balance of `70,00,000/- agreed to pay on or before 30.06.2017. 9. That, the first petitioner has agreed to pay 20% of his annual income inclusive of monthly salary, bonus, stock options and other forms of income received from the Employer after deduction of statutory dues as maintenance amount to his minor son. This will be paid by him to the second petitioner for spending the same by her towards education, maintenance and other expenses of the minor son. 10. The first petitioner agreed to pay `2 Crore towards maintenance of the minor son as stated in “clause No.8” out of which first petitioner agreed to pay `1 Crore on or before 30.06.2016. After the payments of `1 Crore, the first petitioner need not pay any further amount towards maintenance and also agreed to settle the balance of `1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty lakhs only) on or before 30.06.2017.” 10. A reading of clause 8 discloses that the husband agreed to pay a sum of ₹2,20,00,000/- to the wife towards maintenance of their minor son. The said sum was to be paid in four installments as under: i. `50,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2015; ii. `50,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2016; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 iii. `50,00,000 on or before 31.12.2016; iv. Balance sum of `70,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2017. 11. Clause 9 stipulates that the husband agreed to pay 20% of his annual income inclusive of monthly salary, bonus, stock options and other forms of income received from his employer as maintenance for their minor son. That the said amount was to be paid to the wife for spending towards the education, maintenance and other expenses of their son. 12. Clause 10 stipulates that the husband agreed to pay ₹2,00,00,000/- in terms of clause 8, out of which, `1,00,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.06.2016. That after the payment of the said sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-, the husband was not required to pay any further amount towards maintenance and that the balance sum of ₹1,20,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.06.2017. 13. It is further undisputed that the husband paid a total sum of `2,53,93,700/- towards maintenance of their son. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that the wife executed a registered Release Deed in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 favour of the husband on 30.08.2021 relinquishing all her rights in the immoveable property mentioned in the said Deed. It is further contended that the wife would meticulously follow up with the husband with regard to any payments that were required to be made and the fact that the Execution Petition is filed more than 6½ years after the compromise petition dated 29.08.2015 was agreed upon, is indicative of the fact that the said 20% of the annual income of the husband is not due and payable. It is further contended that during the said period of 6½ years, there was no demand made by the wife to the husband for payment of the said 20% of his annual income. It is also contended that if there were any amounts due and payable by the husband to the wife in terms of the compromise agreed between them, the wife would not have executed the registered Release Deed dated 15.09.2016 and that execution of the said Deed is also another factor to indicate that all amounts that were due and payable by the husband to the wife as agreed between them in the compromise have been paid. 15. The husband at para 8 of the statement of objections has setout the payments that he made to the wife - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 between the period of 25.09.2015 to 10.06.2016. It is stated the said sums are paid towards maintenance and that the same was 20% of the annual income of the husband. At para No.9 of statement of objections he has setout the details of the payment of ₹1,00,00,000/- that were made between 10.2.2016 and 16.8.2016. It is stated that a sum of ₹1,20,000/- was paid in excess since there was a delay in payment of ₹1,00,00,000/-. It is further stated that after payment of the said ₹1,00,00,000/-, the husband has stopped paying the periodical amounts of 20% of his annual income. At para No.10 of the statement of objections it is stated that the balance amount of `1,20,00,000/- was paid on various dates and that the entire amount of ₹2,20,00,000/- was paid by 28.07.2017. 16. A reading of clause 8 of the compromise petition clearly indicates that the parties had agreed that the husband shall pay the wife a sum of `2,20,00,000/- as maintenance towards their minor son. The dates on which the payments were required to be made is also mentioned in compromise petition. Clause 9 indicates that 20% of the annual income of the husband is required to be paid as maintenance amount to his minor son. Clause 10 indicates that after payment of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 ₹1,00,00,000/-, the husband need not pay any further amounts towards maintenance and that the balance sum of ₹1,20,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 30.06.2017. 17. It is clear from a combined reading of clauses 8, 9 and 10 that until the husband paid the sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-, he was required to pay 20% of his annual income as maintenance amount and after payment of the said sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- the requirement of paying 20% of the annual income towards maintenance does not arise. Thereafter, the husband was required to make the balance payment ₹1,20,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2017. 18. The conduct of the parties as has been asserted by the learned counsel for the husband is also indicative of the fact that the parties had agreed that the husband shall pay a total sum of `2,20,00,000/- to the wife towards the maintenance of their minor son. As has been noticed above, the entire payment of ₹2,20,00,000/- has been made as on 28.07.2017 and the Execution Petition has been filed on 09.03.2022 i.e., 6½ years after the entire sum of `2,20,00,000/- was paid. Nothing is placed on record to show that soon after payment of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 ₹2,20,00,000/-, till filing of the Execution Petition the wife demanded payment of 20% of the annual income of the husband, which would be the conduct of prudent man in natural course of events. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-wife placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkishorelal and Anr V/s Kamal Narayan4, contends that if there is a conflict between the earlier disposition of absolute title and later a direction of disposition, the later direction should be disregarded. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v/s State of Bihar and Anr5 and Radha Sundar Dutta vs Mohd. Jahadur Rahim and ors6, contending that when there is conflict in interpretation of clauses and the same cannot be reconciled, the earlier clause would prevails over the later clauses. However, the said judgments would not aid the case of the wife, having regard to the fact that a plain reading of clauses 8, 9 and 10 are clear as to the agreement between the parties, 4 1962 SCC Online SC 113 5 2024 LiveLaw (SC)80 6 1958 SCC Online SC 38 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 which aspect is also demonstrated by the conduct of the parties as has been noticed above. 20. The Executing Court while considering the Execution Petition has held that clause 9 of the compromise petition becomes ineffective, if payment is made as per clause 10 of the compromise petition. It is further noticed that if the amounts due and payable, the wife would have filed the petition for recovery of the amount at the earliest point of time and that the conduct of the decree holder leads to the inference that clause 9 of the compromise petition is ineffective, in view of the payment of the entire settlement amount of ₹2,20,00,000/-. Hence, the Executing Court dismissed the Execution Petition. The finding of the Executing Court is just and proper and inconsonance with the clear terms of the compromise petition which has also been fortified by the conduct of the parties. 21. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Executing Court is in any manner erroneous and contrary to any specific material on record and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9893-DB MFA No. 1221 of 2024 22. In view of the discussion made above, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 23. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is dismissed. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS,PNV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 10