[2026:RJ-JP:7240-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3706/2012 Smt Lalita Devi wife of Shri Phool Chand Daughter of Shri Gyarsilal aged 28 years, resident of Hathideh, Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar. ----Appellant Versus Phool Chand Soni S/o Shri Kapil Dev, aged 28 years, resident of Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vidhut Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/02/2026 1. This appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been preferred by appellant-wife, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2012 passed in favour of respondent- husband in divorce petition No.6/2008 by Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 2. Counsel for both parties, having instructions from their respective clients, do admit that both parties have acted upon the decree of divorce and wife entered into re-marriage on 03.11.2014 and husband entered into re-marriage on 08.02.2014. 3. In view of above, counsel for both parties do not dispute that the challenge to the decree of divorce has rendered insignificant and the decree of divorce deserves to be sustained. 4. The issue of permanent alimony survives in respect of wife and two children. [2026:RJ-JP:7240-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-3706/2012] 5. It has been apprised that out of their wedlock parties have one son (born on 19.08.2001 who is staying with father) and one daughter (born on 01.08.2004 who is staying with mother). 6. Counsel for appellant-wife is claiming some maintenance amount, for daughter stating inter alia that, although, she has attained majority, but is still unmarried. In respect of wife, he admits that since she has re-married, her claim for permanent alimony does not survive and son, who has also attained majority, is admittedly staying with father. 7. Respondent-father is present in person and states that he is doing job on the shop of goldsmith, and he is fair enough to agree to pay some amount for maintenance to his daughter and he has agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees) to his daughter within a period of six months. 8. Counsel for appellant-wife, in the above circumstances and having instructions from his client as also of daughter, accepts offer of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees), payable by respondent to daughter of appellant, as full and final settlement. 9. In view of above consensus, the instant appeal is disposed of in following terms:- (i) Since after decree of divorce, both parties have entered into re-marriage, hence, the judgment and decree of divorce dated 24.08.2012 is hereby sustained. (ii) Respondent shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees) to his daughter against her maintenance as a one time settlement. The amount shall be paid by him within a period of six months in easy installments as suitable to him. If daughter furnishes/discloses her bank account, he may deposit the said amount in her bank account. [2026:RJ-JP:7240-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-3706/2012] (iii) The order of interim maintenance dated 29.11.2021 passed in favour of wife is hereby vacated. 10. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 11. Record of the Court below be sent back. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J LALIT MOHAN /4