2025:UHC:6355-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS FA/24/2023 with FA No. 36/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the appellant in FA No. 24 of 2023 and for the respondent in FA No. 36 of 2023. 2. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the respondent in FA No. 24 of 2023 and for the appellant in F.A. No. 36 of 2023. 3. There is delay of 12 days in filing this First Appeal. 4. Reasons furnished in the Delay Condonation Application are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the F.A. No. 36 of 2023. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 1 of 2023) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of First Appeal No. 24 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed. 6. Both husband and wife have challenged the judgment dated 17.01.2023, rendered by Principal 2025:UHC:6355-DB Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 528 of 2021. By the said judgment, the suit for divorce, filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act was allowed, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 19.02.2007 was dissolved by decree of divorce; it was provided that the wife will be the absolute owner of joint property i.e. the house constructed on land Khasra No. 744 (Fasli year 1414 to 1419) Khasra No. 8 ka M/17 (society plot no. 20), area 220 square meter situate at Mauza Kandoli, Pargana Parvadoon, District Dehradun, which was purchased in the name of the respondent; it was further provided that the husband will bear all education expenses of the two children and shall also pay Rs.5,000/- a month for each child in their bank accounts for other expenses of education and rest expenses were to be borne by the mother. 7. Husband has preferred First Appeal No. 36 of 2023, challenging the direction, as contained in paragraph nos. 106 & 107 of the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2023. The wife has challenged the judgment rendered by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun by contending that since she is the absolute owner of house constructed over land Khasra No. 744, therefore, the observation that she will be the absolute owner of joint property, is not warranted. 8. Both the parties have filed a compromise application (IA No. 6 of 2025), which is jointly signed 2025:UHC:6355-DB by both the parties and their respective counsels. Both parties are personally present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. 9. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing for the husband and Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the wife submit that due to intervention by elders, the dispute has now been resolved and the parties have decided to part ways, subject to certain terms and conditions set out in the compromise deed, which is enclosed with their compromise application. 10. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing for husband submits that in terms of the settlement, his client has brought two bank drafts amounting to `50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) each, in the name of his two sons, namely Daksh Kumar Singh and Lakshya Kumar Singh, which were handed over to Ms. Radha Arya (wife) in court today. Mr. Rajat Mittal, appearing for the wife concedes that his client has received the two bank drafts. 11. In paragraph no. 4 of the compromise deed, it is mentioned that husband has relinquished his claim for title from the property, referred to as joint property in the impugned judgment. 12. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the wife submits that as per the settlement, the custody of both the sons will be with the mother. 13. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the husband submits that as per terms of the compromise 2025:UHC:6355-DB deed, wife and children of Mr. Arvind Kumar will not have any right over his other property, which he presently has or which may be acquired by him, in future. 14. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties and also in view of the prayer made by the parties, who are personally present, both the First Appeals are decided in terms of the compromise, which shall be made part of the compromise decree. 15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.23 09:52:17 +05'30'