Friday, August 28, 2026

Once the prosecution establishes that a married woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act arises. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in witness testimony do not warrant rejection of the entire prosecution case; the evidence must be scrutinised as a whole and its material portions separated from exaggerations or peripheral discrepancies.

advocatemmmohan

STATE OF U.P. v. AJMAL BEG ETC.

2025 INSC 1435

Criminal Appeal Nos. 132–133 of 2017
Supreme Court of India — Sanjay Karol, J.

HEADNOTES WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS

1. Dowry Death — Section 304-B IPC — Essential ingredients

[Para 14.1] — For constituting a dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must establish: (i) death of a woman by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) within seven years of marriage; (iii) cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative; (iv) such cruelty or harassment being for or in connection with a demand for dowry; and (v) such cruelty or harassment having occurred soon before her death.

2. Dowry Death — “Soon before her death” — Reasonable time and causal nexus

[Para 14.1] — The expression “soon before her death” cannot be given a narrow or restricted meaning. It requires a reasonable proximity between the dowry-related cruelty or harassment and the death, so that there is a reasonable, if not direct, nexus between the two.

3. Dowry Death — Section 113-B Evidence Act — Presumption

[Paras 14.2, 20] — Once the prosecution establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a dowry demand soon before her death, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act arises that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption is rebuttable by the accused.

4. Section 113-B — Presumption — Failure of defence to rebut

[Para 20] — Where the prosecution proves dowry-related cruelty soon before death and the defence leads no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, the presumption under Section 113-B operates against the accused and remains unrebutted.

5. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 2 — Demand before or after marriage

[Para 23] — The definition of “dowry” under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not confined to property or valuable security given before or at the marriage. It includes property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or at any time after marriage, where it is in connection with the marriage.

6. Dowry — Muslim marriage — Dower/Mahr distinguished from dowry

[Para 23] — Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act expressly excludes dower or mahr applicable under Muslim Personal Law from the statutory definition of dowry. This exclusion does not prevent other property or valuable security demanded in connection with the marriage from constituting dowry.

7. Dowry demand — Colour television, motorcycle and cash — Clearly constitutes dowry

[Para 23] — A demand by the husband or his family for a colour TV, motorcycle and Rs.15,000/- cash in connection with the marriage unquestionably constitutes a demand for dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

8. Section 498-A IPC — Cruelty — Scope

[Para 14.3] — Section 498-A covers both:
(i) wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health; and
(ii) harassment intended to coerce the woman or persons related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Dowry-related harassment is therefore not the sole form of cruelty contemplated by the provision.

9. Criminal trial — Contradictions and discrepancies in evidence — Entire prosecution case not to be discarded

[Para 19.1] — Mere discrepancies, contradictions or embellishments in the testimony of witnesses do not require rejection of the entire prosecution case. The Court must cautiously sift the evidence, separating truth from exaggeration, embellishment and improvement, and determine whether the material and salient portions implicate the accused.

10. Criminal evidence — Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus — Not a sound rule

[Para 19.1] — The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule of evidence. A witness may exaggerate or make mistakes regarding peripheral matters, but that does not automatically destroy the credibility of the material portions of the testimony.

11. Evidence — Court cannot reconstruct a new prosecution story

[Para 19.1] — While separating truth from exaggeration and contradictions, the Court may accept credible portions of evidence after cautious scrutiny; however, where the substratum or material part of the prosecution case is disbelieved, the Court cannot reconstruct an entirely new story from the remaining evidence.

12. Evidence — Witness credibility — Contradiction regarding whether witness actually saw the occurrence

[Para 21] — A discrepancy as to whether PW2 was an eyewitness did not materially affect his testimony where PW2 himself consistently stated that, upon reaching the scene, he saw the deceased ablaze and the accused fleeing, but did not claim to have witnessed the actual act of setting her on fire.

13. Evidence — Unshaken testimony — Cannot be rejected on conjectures and surmises

[Para 21] — Where a witness's material statement remains unshaken in cross-examination, the Court should not reject it merely because another witness has not independently mentioned the same fact. Rejection based merely on conjecture or surmise is impermissible.

14. Evidence — Isolated use of word “happily” — Cannot override entire testimony

[Para 22] — A statement by a witness that the deceased lived in her matrimonial home “happily” cannot be read in isolation so as to negate otherwise consistent evidence of dowry demands and harassment. Evidence must be assessed in its entirety and in context, rather than by attaching decisive significance to a single word.

15. Dowry death — Demand one day before death — Strong evidence satisfying “soon before”

[Para 20] — Where the husband himself reiterated the demand for dowry one day before the deceased's death, and the evidence establishes continuing harassment, the requirement of cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” is satisfied.

16. Dowry death — Defence evidence — Absence of rebuttal

[Para 20] — Once the prosecution establishes the statutory ingredients and the Section 113-B presumption arises, the accused must rebut the presumption. Where the defence leads no evidence, the statutory presumption remains unrebutted.

17. High Court — Acquittal — Appellate interference — Article 136

[Paras 15–15.2] — Although the Supreme Court ordinarily exercises restraint in reappreciating evidence in criminal appeals under Article 136, particularly where there are concurrent findings, such restraint is not an inflexible rule. Where the Trial Court and High Court have reached opposite conclusions, the Supreme Court may analyse the evidence to determine the correct conclusion.

18. Article 136 — Interference with findings — Exceptional circumstances

[Para 15.1] — The Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from interfering with factual findings unless the assessment suffers from an error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence, or is inconsistent with the evidence so as to result in a perverse finding.

19. High Court — Reversal of Trial Court findings — Reasons necessary

[Para 23] — While reversing findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, the High Court must adequately deal with the evidence and assign reasons demonstrating why the findings are erroneous, perverse or illegal. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not expressly established such infirmity before reversing the Trial Court's findings.

20. Dowry demand — Poverty of accused — Cannot be basis for rejecting prosecution case

[Para 23] — The High Court's reasoning that the accused were poor and therefore could not realistically have demanded a colour TV, motorcycle and cash was held unsustainable. The economic status of the accused does not logically negate the factum of a dowry demand.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Nasrin, aged about twenty, was married to Ajmal Beg and had been married for just over a year when she died. Ajmal, his mother Jamila and other family members repeatedly demanded a colour television, motorcycle and Rs.15,000/- from Nasrin and her father.

The demand was reiterated by Ajmal on 4 June 2001. On 5 June 2001, Nasrin was allegedly assaulted and threatened with death. She was thereafter set on fire after kerosene was poured on her.

The Trial Court convicted Ajmal and Jamila under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Allahabad High Court reversed the convictions and acquitted them, principally questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and reasoning, inter alia, that the accused were poor and could not have demanded the articles alleged.

IMPORTANT EVIDENTIARY FINDING

The Supreme Court distinguished material inconsistencies from discrepancies relating to peripheral matters.

It found that the central prosecution case remained intact:

consistent demand for motorcycle, colour TV and Rs.15,000/-;
repeated complaints of harassment;
threats to kill the deceased for non-fulfilment of demands; and
reiteration of the demand by Ajmal one day before death.

The Court therefore held that the contradictions identified by the High Court did not destroy the prosecution case.

CENTRAL RATIO DECIDENDI

Once the prosecution establishes that a married woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act arises. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in witness testimony do not warrant rejection of the entire prosecution case; the evidence must be scrutinised as a whole and its material portions separated from exaggerations or peripheral discrepancies.

The Court found that the demand had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and had been reiterated only one day before the death. Consequently, the “soon before her death” requirement was satisfied and the Section 113-B presumption arose and remained unrebutted because the defence led no evidence. [Para 20]

FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, set aside the High Court's acquittal and restored the Trial Court's conviction of Ajmal and Jamila under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

However, although Jamila's conviction was restored, the Court refrained from incarcerating her because she was 94 years old, taking into account humanitarian considerations relating to advanced age and imprisonment. Ajmal was directed to surrender to serve the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Under Mohammedan Law, a prospective heir has no vested interest in the property of a living ancestor; consequently, partition between the owner and his prospective heirs during the owner's lifetime is impermissible. A Muslim owner may instead transfer property during his lifetime by hiba. For a valid hiba, clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession are indispensable and cumulative requirements; registration is not necessary. A mutation entry recording “partition” cannot, merely by alteration of nomenclature, be treated as evidence of a gift, particularly when the entry itself contains no indication of an intention to gift and mutation does not confer title.

advocatemmmohan

MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS. v. SALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 1006
Civil Appeal Nos. 4211 & 4213 of 2009
Supreme Court of India
Judgment dated: 19 December 2024
Bench: C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

HEADNOTES WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS

1. Mohammedan Law — Succession — Heir-apparent — No vested right during lifetime of ancestor.

[Paras 14–17] — Under Mohammedan Law, the doctrine of janmswatvavada or right by birth is unknown. So long as the owner is alive, he remains the absolute owner of his property and an heir-apparent has no vested or enforceable interest therein. Rights of heirs arise only upon the death of the ancestor.

2. Mohammedan Law — Partition — Lifetime of owner — Partition between owner and prospective heirs impermissible.

[Paras 15, 17, 19–21] — Partition is a redistribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights among co-owners. Since prospective heirs under Mohammedan Law have no right or interest in the property during the lifetime of the owner, there can be no partition between the owner and his heirs during his lifetime.

3. Mohammedan Law — Concept of joint family, coparcenary and partition — Foreign to Muslim Law.

[Paras 14, 17] — The concepts of ancestral property, joint or undivided family, coparcenary, karta, survivorship and partition, as understood in classical Hindu law, have no place in Mohammedan Law. Heirs succeed as tenants-in-common to definite shares upon the death of the ancestor.

4. Mohammedan Law — Owner wishing to transfer property during lifetime — Gift (hiba) is permissible mode.

[Paras 15, 21] — Though partition with prospective heirs is impermissible during the owner's lifetime, the owner is free to transfer his property during his lifetime, primarily by way of hiba (gift), subject to the requirements of Mohammedan Law.

5. Hiba — Oral gift — Validity — Registration not necessary.

[Paras 23–28] — A Muslim may make a valid gift orally. Registration of a gift is not required under Mohammedan Law. An oral or unregistered gift is valid if the essential requirements prescribed by Mohammedan Law are fulfilled. Conversely, even a registered instrument cannot validate a gift where those essential requirements are absent.

6. Hiba — Three essential requisites — Declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession.

[Paras 23, 25–28] — A valid Muslim gift requires three essential elements: (i) clear and unequivocal declaration of gift by the donor; (ii) acceptance by or on behalf of the donee, express or implied; and (iii) delivery of possession, actual or constructive, to the donee. All three requisites are cumulative and sequential.

7. Hiba — Declaration, acceptance and possession — All mandatory — Failure of one requisite renders gift invalid.

[Para 26] — The three conditions are sequential. If declaration is absent, acceptance and possession cannot cure the defect; similarly, declaration and possession without acceptance are insufficient. All three conditions must be satisfied for a valid gift.

8. Hiba — Form — Oral or written — Nature of gift not altered merely because reduced to writing.

[Paras 27–28] — The validity of a Muslim gift depends upon satisfaction of the substantive requirements of Mohammedan Law, not upon the form of the transaction. A gift may be oral or reduced to writing, and the mere fact that it is written does not necessarily make registration mandatory.

9. Hiba — Written instrument — Registration — Not necessary where Muslim-law requisites fulfilled.

[Paras 27–28] — A contemporaneous writing evidencing a Muslim gift does not become invalid merely because it is unregistered, provided declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession are proved in accordance with Mohammedan Law. The form is immaterial; the three essential requisites are decisive.

10. Mutation entry — Revenue record — Does not create or extinguish title.

[Para 35] — Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title and has no presumptive value regarding title. Its purpose is limited to enabling collection of land revenue.

11. Mutation entry — Nomenclature — Substance rather than mere label relevant, but nature of transaction cannot be altered contrary to its expressed contents.

[Paras 29–34] — Although the substance of a transaction is generally more important than nomenclature, partition and gift are legally distinct transactions with different requisites and consequences. Where the mutation entry expressly records a partition and contains no indication of an intention to make a gift, the Court cannot simply substitute “gift” for “partition”.

12. Interpretation of document — Intention of executant — Intention gathered from words used.

[Paras 32–33] — The primary rule of construction is to ascertain the intention expressed through the words employed in the document. Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and cannot substitute an unexpressed intention for the expressed intention.

13. Mutation entry — Alleged oral gift — Entry recording “partition” — Cannot by itself establish hiba.

[Paras 29–35] — The mutation entry in the present case expressly recorded a partition in favour of the two sons. It contained no indication of a gift. Further, mutation does not confer title. The entry therefore could neither be re-characterised as a gift nor establish title in favour of the appellants.

14. Hiba — Failure to prove clear and unequivocal declaration — Gift invalid notwithstanding proof of acceptance and possession.

[Para 36] — Even assuming acceptance and possession were established, the essential requirement of a clear and unequivocal declaration of gift was not proved. The evidence of the defence witnesses was vague and did not establish the requisite intention and declaration by the donor. Consequently, the alleged oral gift was invalid.

CASE FACTS

Sultan Saheb was the owner of the suit agricultural land and house property. He had one daughter, Ajamunisa, from his first marriage and two sons, Mansoorsaheb and Sikandar, and a daughter Rabiyabi, from his second marriage. The plaintiffs were the children of Rabiyabi.

After Sultan Saheb's death on 09.01.1978, Mansoorsaheb had the names of himself, Sikandar and Ajamunisa mutated in the revenue records, excluding Rabiyabi, who was also a successor-in-interest. The plaintiffs therefore instituted O.S. No.140/1988, claiming 1/6th share in the suit properties.

The defendants contended that Sultan Saheb had, during his lifetime, divided one property into three portions, allegedly giving one portion each to his two sons and retaining the third. They further claimed that in September 1980 the retained portion was partitioned among his four children. Reliance was placed upon Mutation Entry No.8258 dated 21.01.1973.

The defendants subsequently characterised the transaction reflected in the mutation entry as an oral gift (hiba) rather than a partition, contending that Sultan Saheb had:

declared the gift;
the sons had accepted it; and
possession had been delivered.

The Trial Court rejected the plea because the essential requirements of an oral gift had not been conclusively established and also rejected the plea of lifetime partition. It decreed the plaintiffs' 1/6th share. [Para 7]

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's findings. [Para 8]

QUESTIONS OF LAW

The Supreme Court formulated two principal questions:

(a)

Whether an owner of property can, during his lifetime, transfer the property to his heirs by way of partition?

(b)

Whether the requisites of a valid gift were satisfied and whether the nomenclature used in the Mutation Entry could be treated as indicative of the donor's intention? [Para 2]

LAW APPLIED

I. Lifetime partition under Mohammedan Law

The Supreme Court held that under Mohammedan Law, an heir-apparent has no present proprietary interest in the property of a living ancestor. Succession opens only upon the death of the ancestor. [Paras 14, 17]

Consequently, partition—which necessarily presupposes pre-existing rights—cannot take place between a living owner and his prospective heirs. [Paras 16–21]

The appropriate legal method by which Sultan Saheb could have transferred portions of his property to his sons during his lifetime was therefore hiba, not partition. [Para 21]

II. Valid Muslim gift

The Court reaffirmed the settled rule that a Muslim gift may be oral and need not be registered.

The three essential requisites are:

Declaration — clear and unequivocal intention of the donor to make the gift;
Acceptance — express or implied acceptance by the donee; and
Delivery of possession — actual or constructive.

[Paras 23–28]

The requirements are cumulative. Failure to establish even one of them invalidates the gift. [Para 26]

III. Mutation entry and nomenclature

The appellants argued that although Mutation Entry No.8258 described the transaction as “partition”, the Court should read it as an oral gift.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument.

While substance rather than nomenclature is ordinarily relevant, partition and gift are fundamentally different transactions. Partition involves division of pre-existing rights among persons having an interest; a gift is a voluntary transfer of existing property without consideration. Their legal requisites are therefore different. [Para 31]

Further, the mutation entry itself expressly stated that Sultan Saheb had effected a partition in favour of his sons and gave no indication of an intention to make a gift. [Para 34]

IV. Mutation does not confer title

The Court reiterated that mutation entries are maintained for revenue purposes and do not create, extinguish or conclusively establish title. [Para 35]

Therefore, even apart from the incorrect description of the transaction as partition, the mutation entry could not itself establish title in favour of the appellants.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

The Supreme Court found that the defence failed to establish the first and fundamental requirement of hiba, namely a clear and unequivocal declaration by Sultan Saheb that he intended to gift the property to his sons.

The defence witnesses, DW2 and DW3, did not provide reliable evidence establishing such declaration or intention. Their evidence was vague, and the mutation entry itself did not support the alleged gift. [Para 36]

The Court therefore held that even if acceptance and possession were assumed to have been established, the absence of proof of declaration was fatal to the alleged gift.

Thus:

No valid lifetime partition + no proved valid hiba = no valid transfer of the disputed property to the sons during Sultan Saheb's lifetime.

CONCLUSION / FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court answered the questions of law in favour of the plaintiffs and held:

A Muslim owner cannot partition his property during his lifetime between himself and his prospective heirs, because the prospective heirs have no vested interest during his lifetime. [Paras 19–21, 37]
A Muslim owner may, however, transfer property during his lifetime by way of hiba, provided all the essential requirements of a valid gift are satisfied.
A Muslim gift may be oral and unregistered.
The three mandatory requirements of hiba are declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession.
In the present case, the essential requirement of a clear and unequivocal declaration of gift was not proved.
Mutation Entry No.8258, which expressly described the transaction as partition, could not be converted into an oral gift merely by changing its nomenclature.
Mutation entry does not confer title. [Paras 34–38]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. [Para 38]

RATIO DECIDENDI

Under Mohammedan Law, a prospective heir has no vested interest in the property of a living ancestor; consequently, partition between the owner and his prospective heirs during the owner's lifetime is impermissible. A Muslim owner may instead transfer property during his lifetime by hiba. For a valid hiba, clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession are indispensable and cumulative requirements; registration is not necessary. A mutation entry recording “partition” cannot, merely by alteration of nomenclature, be treated as evidence of a gift, particularly when the entry itself contains no indication of an intention to gift and mutation does not confer title.

Where parties to a matrimonial dispute amicably settle all their disputes and the settlement comprehensively provides for divorce, maintenance/alimony, withdrawal or quashing of connected proceedings and abandonment of further claims, the Supreme Court may give effect to the settlement in its entirety, affirm the agreed decree of divorce, quash the consequential matrimonial proceedings and bring the entire litigation to a final quietus.

advocatemmmohan

ASMA K. v. RAHIM MOGRAL @ ABDUL RAHEEM

SLP (C) No. 5109/2023
Supreme Court of India — Order dated 20 January 2025
Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

HEADNOTES WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS

1. Matrimonial dispute — Settlement — Decree of divorce — Parties agreeing to accept decree — Supreme Court setting aside appellate judgment and affirming Family Court decree.

[Paras 2–6] — Where the divorced spouses amicably resolve their matrimonial disputes through a settlement deed and the husband expressly accepts the decree of divorce already granted by the Family Court, the Supreme Court may give effect to the settlement. The High Court judgment was set aside and the Family Court judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 granting divorce was affirmed.

2. Muslim divorced wife — Maintenance and fair provision — Settlement — Payment of ₹4 lakhs towards claims under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and matrimonial maintenance proceedings.

[Para 4(b)–(d)] — The husband agreed to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner-wife towards reasonable and fair provision, maintenance and other benefits claimed by her as his divorced wife under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, as well as in full settlement of the claims in M.C. No.60/2017.

3. Settlement — Part payment and amount already deposited before Magistrate — Wife entitled to withdraw deposited amount — No further claim after receipt of settled amount.

[Para 4(c)–(d), Paras 7–8] — Of the agreed ₹4 lakhs, ₹1.50 lakhs was paid to the wife and ₹2.50 lakhs had already been deposited before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. The husband consented to release of the deposited amount to the wife. Upon receipt of the entire settled amount and confirmation of the divorce decree, the wife agreed not to make any further claim against the respondents.

4. Criminal proceedings — Matrimonial dispute — Settlement — Maintenance complaint — Quashing in terms of settlement.

[Para 7] — In view of the comprehensive settlement between the parties and receipt of the agreed alimony and maintenance by the wife, M.C. No.60/2017 pending before the First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod, Kerala, was quashed.

5. Matrimonial settlement — All matrimonial issues resolved — Settlement given complete effect.

[Para 6] — The Supreme Court recorded the parties' agreement that all matrimonial issues between them stood resolved and disposed of the SLP in terms of the settlement.

6. Civil proceedings — Settlement — Husband agreeing not to pursue suit — Effect.

[Para 4(e)] — As part of the settlement, the husband agreed to file a memo not pressing the further prosecution of O.S. No.352/2022 pending before the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod.

7. Supreme Court — Settlement in matrimonial dispute — Complete quietus — Proceedings disposed of in settlement terms.

[Paras 5–9] — The Court gave effect to the comprehensive settlement covering divorce, maintenance/alimony, criminal proceedings and civil litigation, thereby bringing the matrimonial dispute to a final conclusion.

CASE FACTS

The petitioner-wife, Asma K., and respondent-husband, Rahim Mogral @ Abdul Raheem, were involved in matrimonial litigation.

During the pendency of SLP (C) No.5109/2023, the parties amicably resolved their disputes through a deed of settlement dated 8 April 2024, which had been recorded in proceedings in Crl. Appeal No.100/2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod. [Para 2]

Under the settlement:

The husband accepted the divorce decree dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod, in O.P. No.469/2020.
He acknowledged that the petitioner was his divorced wife.
He agreed to pay ₹4 lakhs towards reasonable and fair provision, maintenance and other benefits under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and towards settlement of the wife's claims in M.C. No.60/2017.
₹1.50 lakhs was paid to the wife and ₹2.50 lakhs had already been deposited before the Magistrate.
The husband gave his no objection to the wife withdrawing the deposited ₹2.50 lakhs.
On receipt of the full ₹4 lakhs and confirmation of the divorce decree by the Supreme Court, the wife agreed not to make any further claim against the respondents.
The husband agreed not to press O.S. No.352/2022 pending before the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod.

LAW / LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Effect of matrimonial settlement

The Court treated the settlement as a complete resolution of the matrimonial disputes and gave effect to the agreed terms.

The important feature is that the settlement did not concern merely the divorce. It comprehensively dealt with:

the divorce decree;
maintenance and alimony;
the wife's claim under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act;
the criminal maintenance proceeding;
the amount deposited before the Magistrate; and
the husband's pending civil suit.

2. Existing decree of divorce

The husband expressly accepted the Family Court decree dated 30.11.2021 granting divorce. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the contrary judgment of the Kerala High Court and affirmed the Family Court decree. [Para 5]

3. Settlement of maintenance claim

The agreed ₹4 lakhs represented settlement of the wife's claims for reasonable and fair provision and maintenance and her other benefits as a divorced Muslim wife, together with the claims in M.C. No.60/2017. [Para 4(b)–(d)]

4. Finality of settlement

The settlement contained a finality clause: after receipt of the entire agreed amount and confirmation of the divorce decree, the wife would have no further claim against the respondents. [Para 4(d)]

CONCLUSION / FINAL ORDER

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the Kerala High Court judgment dated 06.02.2023 in Mat. Appeal No.559/2022.
Affirmed the Family Court decree dated 30.11.2021 in O.P. No.469/2020 granting divorce.
Recorded that all matrimonial issues stood resolved.
Recorded receipt of the agreed alimony and maintenance by the wife.
Quashed M.C. No.60/2017 pending before the First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod.
Permitted the wife to withdraw the ₹2.50 lakhs deposited by the husband.
Gave effect to the settlement concerning the husband's civil suit, O.S. No.352/2022.
Disposed of the SLP in terms of the settlement.
Disposed of pending applications. [Paras 5–10]

RATIO / LEGAL PROPOSITION

Where parties to a matrimonial dispute amicably settle all their disputes and the settlement comprehensively provides for divorce, maintenance/alimony, withdrawal or quashing of connected proceedings and abandonment of further claims, the Supreme Court may give effect to the settlement in its entirety, affirm the agreed decree of divorce, quash the consequential matrimonial proceedings and bring the entire litigation to a final quietus.