Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.@mdashThis Revisional application is directed against the Order No. 50 dated 09.09.2010 passed by learned Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 221 of 2003. Respondent/husband filed a Matrimonial Suit No. 221 of 2003 against the petitioner/wife praying for decree of divorce. Petitioner filed a petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) for her monthly maintenance and Rs. 1,50,000/-(rupees one lakh fifty thousand) for the maintenance of her mentally retarded daughter and Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) towards litigation cost. Learned trial court by the impugned order rejected the prayer for alimony pendente lite and also for litigation cost.
2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner/wife has preferred this Revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife that the petitioner/wife received a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from her husband/opposite party in terms of agreement for the purpose of purchasing a separate flat for her separate residence. She purchased the said flat at the cost of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- is not at all for her alimony/maintenance. Therefore, it is submitted that learned trial court was wrong in rejecting the prayer of maintenance and litigation cost. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife that Hon''ble Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 with CAN 5989 of 2006 has also held that the petitioner/wife shall purchase a flat for her separate accommodation out of the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and, therefore, the order of learned trial court rejecting the prayer for alimony/maintenance on the ground of payment of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as one time settlement suffers from illegality and impropriety and the said order should be set aside and necessary order may be passed for allowing alimony and litigation cost.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the O.P./husband has submitted that agreement dated 16th June, 2006 between the husband and wife reveals that sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- was given as one time settlement towards her future maintenance and separate accommodation and wife shall not claim any amount for her maintenance in future. It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P./husband that the O.P. has no further liability to pay any further amount towards maintenance in view of the payment of the said amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as per terms of the agreement and, therefore, learned court below was correct in rejecting the petition for alimony or the maintenance and litigation cost.
5. I have carefully heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials on record including the impugned order passed by the learned court below. From the deed of agreement dated 16th June, 2006 made between the petitioner/wife and O.P./husband it appears that the agreement was made between the parties to the effect that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- "as one time settlement towards her future maintenance and separate accommodation, the wife shall not claim any amount for her maintenance in future." From Clause No. 8 of the said deed it appears that "none of the parties shall have any claim against the other in future." From Clause No. 9 it further appears that "the wife shall not bring any proceedings against her husband for her maintenance in any Court of law." From Clause No. 7 it also appears that "at the time of legal divorce or at any other time no further claim will be made by the wife."
6. On close and careful perusal of the terms of the deed of agreement it is crystal clear that all kinds of claim of the wife including maintenance have been settled by the terms of said deed of agreement wherein the husband is to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as one time settlement towards her future maintenance and separate accommodation and the wife shall not make any claim in future at the time of divorce or at any other time and wife shall not bring any proceeding against her husband for her maintenance.
7. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of this Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 with CAN 5989 of 2006. This order was passed in connection with the terms of agreement of the deed dated 16th June, 2006. By virtue of the said order this Court adopted a method for implementation of terms of the deed of agreement. This Court directed the wife to select a flat or a separate accommodation and the cost of such flat or separate accommodation will be met out of the total amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- which was agreed to be paid by the husband to the wife. This Court in the said order made it clear that other terms of the agreement shall remain as it is.
8. On a close and careful perusal of the order of this Court in the aforesaid C.O., it does not at all appear that in terms of the deed of agreement the husband agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- only for purchase of the flat or separate accommodation. There is no whisper in the said order that the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- does not include maintenance or other claims including litigation cost of the wife. On the other hand, this Court in third paragraph of order in C.O. 1324 of 2005 with CAN 5989 of 2006 dated 19.09.2006 held "at the first instance after perusing the terms of settlement, it appears to me that the petitioner was agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of her entire claim towards future maintenance...................... If the parties have actually settled their disputes by paying one time maintenance and disposing of all other cases filed against each other, I find no justification in keeping the matrimonial suit alive to be contested between the parties."
9. Therefore, submission of learned advocate for the petitioner/wife finds no merit in view of the order of this Court in C.O. No. mentioned above as well as in terms of the deed of agreement dated 16th June, 2006. Learned trial court in order No. 50 dated 9th September, 2010 in Matrimonial Suit No. 221 of 2003 has rightly observed that pursuant to the agreement dated 16th June, 2010 the wife received Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as one time settlement towards future maintenance and separate accommodation. This Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 vide order dated 11.09.2007 has also observed that "it is not in dispute that the O.P./wife in accordance with the said mutual arrangement has received an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards alimony/maintenance for herself. It also seems to be the agreed position that the elder daughter of the parties is in the custody of the petitioner/husband whereas the minor daughter who is reportedly mentally challenged is in the custody of the opposite party/wife. The opposite party/wife has left her matrimonial home along with the said minor child and is reportedly staying at Kanpur. The above position seems to be admitted."
10. After considering the order and observation of this Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 together with CAN 5989 of 2006 that is order dated 19.09.2006 and 11.09.2007 I have no hesitation to hold that the wife/petitioner received a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- not only towards her maintenance but also for all kinds of claim as one time settlement for her future maintenance and accommodation. Therefore, in terms of the agreement the wife/petitioner is not entitled to claim any further amount for her maintenance in future. Attention of this Court has also been drawn by the learned advocate of the petitioner/wife to a letter dated 4th October, 2006 to the effect that wife purchased the flat at a value of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. It is submitted by learned advocate for the O.P./husband that petitioner/wife did not at all purchase any flat and she has been residing at Kanpur. No document towards the purchase of the flat by the said amount is furnished. Moreover, this Court in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005 has observed that wife has left her matrimonial home and is living at Kanpur with minor child. But this letter does not at all entitle the petitioner to claim any further maintenance in view of the compliance of the terms of agreement dated 16th June, 2006 by O.P./husband in the matter of payment of amount as well as in view of the observation of this Court in the order dated 11.09.2007 in C.O. No. 1324 of 2005.
11. In the facts and circumstances I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order No. 50 dated 09.09.2010 passed by learned court below. Therefore, Revisional application stands dismissed without, however, any cost. Photostat certified copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be made over to the parties on usual terms.
