Mr. Singh, you have paid Rs. 4 crores. That is a very large sum. Are you paying this under coercion? Are you being forced to pay because of the domestic violence case pending against you?

My Lord, the payment is entirely voluntary. I am an educated person and a member of the legal profession. I understand my rights. I am paying Rs. 4 crores because I want a clean break and finality. Continuing the litigation would cost me more in legal fees, mental agony, and reputational damage. I have made an economic decision that paying Rs. 4 crores now is better than paying an uncertain amount later through court proceedings. There is no coercion. The Court can interact with me in person to confirm my voluntary consent.

What about the police visit to the wife's father's home? Were you involved in that? Did you instruct the police to act despite the stay order?

My Lord, I was not involved in that incident. I did not instruct any police officer to visit the petitioner's father's home. The police were acting on an NCR that was filed before the settlement. When I learned of the incident, I was as concerned as the petitioner. I have fully complied with the stay order. The Court has accepted the explanations of the Magistrate and police officials. I have no further submissions except to express my regret that this happened.

The Memorandum of Understanding says that all proceedings 'not within the knowledge of the other party' shall also stand withdrawn. How can the Court quash proceedings it does not know about? This clause is vague and may lead to future disputes.

My Lord, the purpose of this clause is to ensure that neither party can later claim ignorance about some obscure proceeding and use it to harass the other. Both parties have made full disclosure of all known proceedings. The clause is meant to cover hypothetical situations where a party, through oversight, did not list a proceeding. The Court can add a clarification: the parties shall disclose all proceedings known to them, and any proceeding that is later discovered shall be deemed withdrawn upon the party bringing it to the Court's attention. This will avoid any ambiguity.

The wife is giving up her right to reside in the shared household. Where will she live after the divorce? Has adequate provision been made for her housing?

My Lord, the settlement amount of Rs. 4 crores is intended to cover all needs, including housing. The petitioner-wife can use a portion of this amount to purchase or rent a home. She is not being left homeless. Moreover, the respondent had previously offered to pay for alternative rented accommodation, but the petitioner refused. The respondent is not responsible for providing housing beyond the lump sum payment. The settlement is comprehensive, and the petitioner has accepted it as sufficient. This Court should not impose additional housing obligations beyond what the parties have agreed.

For RespondentFamily Premium

Settlement Accepted, Marriage Dissolved by Mutual Consent — Manpreet Kaur

The respondent-husband has fully complied with the settlement terms, deposited Rs. 4 crores with the Registry, and consents to the dissolution of marriage.

Manpreet Kaur v. Harjyot Singh Bhalla — T.P.(Crl.) No. 569 of 2022

Core Argument

The respondent-husband has fully complied with the settlement terms, deposited Rs. 4 crores with the Registry, and consents to the dissolution of marriage. The Court should accept the settlement and pass a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Key Precedents

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 — Supports the proposition that where parties have voluntarily settled and consent to divorce, the waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be waived.
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Supports the exercise of Article 142 powers in matrimonial settlements.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in