BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

AT NEW DELHI
IN

IN THE MATTER OF:-

POOJA SHAH
… Appellant

VERSUS

SH. GAURAV SIDHU

… Respondent

INDEX

S. No Particulars Page No.

Application for challenging the
1 compromised deed
Certificate under Sec 65-B
2 Evidence Act
Affidavit
3

4 List of Documents along with

supporting documents

5 Wakalatnama

Appellant
Through

Place: New Delhi

Date:

Advocate
Rashmi Singh
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-

POOJA SHAH
D/O SH. KHUSHI RAM,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O AG-1/170B, VIKAS PURI,
DELHI -110018

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

SH. GAURAV SIDHU

S/O P.C. SIDHU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O G-3/43-44, SECTOR-11
ROHINI, DELHI-110085

… RESPONDENT

APPEAL TO CHALLENGE THE COMPROMISE DEED ON THE GROUND OF

UNDUE INFLUENCE AND MISREPRESENTATION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioners who are Hindu by Religion, got married on

01.02.2014 at Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The
marriage was consummated but no issue was born out of the said
wedlock.
2. The Appellant have been living separately since 08.04.2015 as the
petitioner no. 2 that is the Appellant in the present application has faced
Domestic violence from Petitioner No.1 and his family that is the
Respondent in the present application.

3. That the Respondents have been doing fraud with the Appellant right
from the beginning. The family of the Respondent had stated lie that the
property belongs to the Respondent but after marriage the Appellant
was removed from the said house that the Respondent was disowned
from the property.

4. That Appellant was sent to the rented house by the Respondents after
4,5 months of Marriage & was left alone in the rented house after 1 year
of marriage by the Respondent & went back to his parents house &
filed for Divorce petition. The Respondent and his family are torturing
the Appellant since starting it seems their pre-planning to extort the
Appellant.

5. The Appellant was working before marriage but she left her job because
the Respondents did not allow her for Evening Shifts. But after 1 week
of marriage they started insisting her for doing Job, they checked her
Jewellery in her absence & used to check her Almira on regular basis.

6. The Appellant's Mother in law even said that they were interested in her
only because of her Job, after 3 months of marriage. She & her Elder
Daughter even asked for Gold rings from the Appellant for their Son-in-
law just 2 days before marriage & for Brothers after marriage.

7. That the present Application has been filed by the Appellant for setting
aside the compromise decree between above Petitioners vide dated
05/11/2022 on the ground of Undue Influence and
Misrepresentations. Thus, the said decree is vitiated as the consent of
the Appellant was not free consent.

8. That the Divorce petition was filed by the Respondent in April, 2015.
For almost 9 years the case of the Appellant was pending and the
Respondent was not taking any step neither ready to pay a penny since
2015, and she along with her family have been suffering mentally from
then as the Respondents were torturing and harassing them.
9. That in between the Appellant filed Maintenance petition but the
Respondent was neither paying the same thereafter the Appellant filed
Execution 2 times but the Respondent did not pay for the 2nd
Execution till date. The action of the Respondent shows his malafide
intention.

10.That Appellant father wanted her to get remarry during his lifetime but
because of the Respondent delaying the matter since nine years
Appellant couldn’t move on and restart her life.

11.That due to divorce case as filed by the Respondent against the

Appellant, her father got unwell during this period. He was suffering
from multiple health problems.

12.That finally in the year 2021 the Appellant’s father's health condition
came to the knowledge of the Respondent. And in order to take
advantage of the Appellant’s circumstances, the Respondent through his
advocate influenced the Appellant to proceed for the mutual divorce
petition.

13.That further the Respondent and his advocate misrepresented the

Appellant as the terms and conditions of the compromise-cum-
settlement deed was not read and made understood to the Appellant at
the time of signing Compromise deed. That vide WhatsApp chat
Appellant informed the Respondent’s advocate that Appellant will take
the furniture items after verifying if they were in good condition
otherwise she has requested for Rs. 2 lakh only in respect of those
items. That this clause was not mentioned in the settlement agreement
even after instructed by the Appellant. The Appellant doesn’t have
any counsel on her behalf to guide at the time of signing the
compromise deed.

14.That The Respondent have further misled the Appellant by

misrepresenting that the mutual divorce would be settled maximum in
3-6 months but two years have passed till now and still it is not settled.

15.That in the Nov, 2021 the condition of Appellant father’s health badly
detoriated, she doesn’t have mother thus she was mentally suffering and
not in a condition to take prudent decision and thus the Respondent
 through his advocate influenced her to sign the Compromise decree.
They even mentioned that if she will not sign it, she wouldn’t even get
Rs 15,00,000/-. That the Appellant thus signed the compromise deed in
undue influence caused by the Respondent.

16.That approx. Rs. 15,00,000/- was the total expenses on marriage but
after 10 years the same amount received without any interest is unfair to
the Appellant as she has wasted almost 10 years in the divorce matter
and signed the compromise deed in undue influence without receiving
any permanent alimony amount.

17.That finally in March,2023 Appellant’s father expired due to heart

attack as he couldn’t handle the divorce of her Daughter, further his
Daughter’s life was lost both professionally as well as personally in
these long years.

18.That Appellant lost many job opportunities due to her pending cases as
she has to regularly take leaves for appearances in the court for various
pending matters between the parties.

19.That on 2nd August, 2022 the Respondent returned the furniture items to
the Appellant but the same items were not checked in the court. That
even after Communicating to the Respondent’s advocate that furniture
items would be accepted only after checking, the said condition was not
included in the compromise deed.

20. That the Appellant has received the packed items but without checking
them. That when Appellant unpacked the furniture she was shocked to
see the conditions of the furniture. The Almirah was broken & rusted,
the Dressing table was burnt and broken, the Bed was totally rusted.
That they haven’t included the mattresses in the deed and neither
returned them. That it is hereby noted that the furniture items given at
the time of marriage were new & in very Good condition and the items
returned by the Respondent are trash/junk.

21.That the Appellant’s very Expensive Clothes and some personal items
were locked in the Almirah but when she checked the Almira she got to
know that the lock was opened by the Respondents side and some
clothes & items have not been taken by the Respondents but they have
not returned till date.
 22.That above acts of the Respondent shows their malafide intention that’s
why Appellant at various occasion requested the Respondent through
his advocate to verify the jewellery before its receiving but the
Respondent is not doing the same. That the Respondents have been
delaying the matter since first motion.

23.That Appellant has lost her father and has no job or source of income to
continue the livelihood.

24.That the Appellant even approached the Family Court, Rohini District,
New Delhi, for challenging the settlement deed on the ground of undue
influence and misrepresentations but Filing in Charge refuse to accept
Appellant’ s application, thus we have approach to this Hon’ble Court.

25.That the present Application has been filed by the Appellant for setting
aside the compromise decree on the ground of undue influence and
misrepresentations. Thus, the said decree is vitiated as the consent of
the Appellant was not free consent.

PRAYER:

In view of the above facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed to this Hon’ble Court: -

1. Set aside the compromise deed between above petitioners as consent of the
Appellant was not free consent

2. Pass an order to compensate of Rs.2 lakh for furniture against the Respondent
and in favour of Appellant

3. Pass an order to increase the alimony by Rupees 25 lakh in favour of

Appellant as her 10 years was wasted and she has lost her father and now she
doesn’t have financial support for her livelihood.

4.Pass an order to return the jewellery after verifying them by Appellant’s

Jewellers.
 5. Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Respondent person.

Appellant
Through
Place: New Delhi
Date:

Advocate

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ____________that the contents of the application are

true and correct to my knowledge and as per record. Last para is prayer to this
Hon’ble Court.

Appellant