Crl.A. No. 1625 of 2009 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1625 of 2009

POONAM KHANNA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

 V.P. SHARMA & ANR.    .....   RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. We have heard the parties appearing in person very  

carefully.

2. The  primary  grievance  of  the  appellant  wife  is  

that despite the comprehensive deed of settlement dated  

2nd April, 2003, the respondent had continued to pursue  

the litigations that were pending and has infact filed  

some  additional  cases  as  well.   We  put  it  to  the  

respondent as to whether he would be willing to withdraw  

all  the  cases  which  had  been  initiated  by  him.   He  

categorically  stated that he would do so but when a  

similar  query  was  put  to  the  appellant  she,  at  the

Crl.A. No. 1625 of 2009 2

initial stage, said that she would not withdraw them but  

when told that we were inclined to dismiss the appeal,  

she said that she would withdraw the cases that she had  

filed  but  would  continue  to  pursue  some  of  the  

applications  that had been filed on behalf of the child  

and would continue to seek additional maintenance.

3. In  the  circumstances,  we  are  not  inclined  to  

interefere in this matter.  The appeal is dismissed.

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 17, 2011.