Conciliation Report

Title: Ties That Broke, Bonds That Remain

Subject: Divorce, Maintenance, Custody, Paternity, Property
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

This conciliation addresses two separate but emotionally parallel disputes arising from
the breakdown of long-term relationships.
●​ Case 1 (Anupama Shah vs. Vanraj Shah): After 26 years of marriage, Anupama
Shah seeks resolution following the discovery of her husband Vanraj Shah's
infidelity. Vanraj desires a divorce. Key disputes involve maintenance for
Anupama, custody of their adult daughter Pakhi, Anupama's claim to a share in
the family home, and her need for acknowledgment of her contributions and
emotional distress. Anupama, formerly a homemaker, has recently started her
own business, while Vanraj contests her financial and property claims.
●​ Case 2 (Prerna Basu vs. Anurag Basu): Prerna Basu seeks legal recognition and
support for her daughter, Sneha, fathered by Anurag Basu. Anurag married
another woman under pressure despite his relationship with Prerna, who was
pregnant at the time. Prerna, now a successful entrepreneur, demands legal
acknowledgment of paternity, child support, and recognition of Sneha's rights as
Anurag's heir. Anurag expresses remorse and offers private financial support but
resists public/legal acknowledgment due to concerns about his current marriage
and business reputation.

Both cases involve complex emotional histories, significant life changes

post-separation, and fundamental disagreements on financial responsibilities,
parental rights, and the valuation of past contributions and emotional harm. The
parties seek resolution through conciliation to avoid protracted litigation.

2. ISSUES INVOLVED

A. Anupama Shah vs. Vanraj Shah:

i. Granting of Divorce (Mutual Consent sought, terms disputed).
ii. Quantum and form of Maintenance for Anupama (₹75,000 monthly vs. ₹30 lakh lump sum
vs. no maintenance).
iii. Custody of daughter Pakhi (18 years old) (Full custody vs. Joint custody).
iv. Anupama's claim to a share/interest in the Shah Mansion (Matrimonial Home).
v. Requirement for emotional closure for Anupama (Acknowledgment/apology from Vanraj).
B. Prerna Basu vs. Anurag Basu:
i. Legal acknowledgment and recognition of Sneha's Paternity by Anurag.
ii. Provision and quantum of Child Support for Sneha (Monthly support & educational
expenses).
iii. Legal status and Inheritance Rights of Sneha as Anurag's daughter.
iv. Nature of the agreement (Public legal recognition vs. Private financial arrangement).
3. CONTENTIONS FROM PARTY A

A. Anupama Shah:
i. Divorce: Willing to grant divorce but only if her dignity, rights, and contributions are
acknowledged and appropriately addressed in the settlement.
ii. Maintenance: Demands ₹75,000 per month or a one-time settlement of ₹30 lakh, citing 26
years of unpaid domestic, emotional, and physical labor, sacrificing her own career and
education for the family's well-being. Argues her current income from the new academy does
not negate her right to maintenance based on past contributions and the standard of living
during the marriage.
iii. Custody: Seeks full custody of Pakhi, emphasizing the emotional turmoil Pakhi is
experiencing and potentially implying Vanraj's conduct makes him less suitable.
iv. Property: Claims a share in the Shah Mansion, arguing that although it's in her
father-in-law's name, significant renovations were funded by her dowry and inherited gold,
establishing an equitable interest.
v. Acknowledgment: Seeks formal acknowledgment (possibly a written apology) from Vanraj
for the infidelity and emotional pain caused, as part of achieving closure.
B. Prerna Basu:
i. Paternity: Demands formal, legal recognition of Anurag as Sneha's father, asserting the
child's fundamental right to identity.
ii. Child Support: Requires Anurag to provide consistent financial support covering Sneha's
upbringing, including monthly maintenance and all educational expenses, commensurate with
his financial capacity.
iii. Inheritance/Status: Seeks legal acknowledgment of Sneha's status as Anurag's heir,
ensuring her rights are protected.
iv. Transparency: Rejects Anurag's offer of private financial support, insisting on a formal, legal
agreement to ensure legitimacy, dignity for Sneha, and enforceability. Argues secrecy
undermines the child's rights and dignity.
4. CONTENTIONS FROM PARTY B

A. Vanraj Shah:
i. Divorce: Seeks a swift divorce, likely by mutual consent, but on terms favorable to him with
minimal obligations.
ii. Maintenance: Unwilling to provide maintenance, arguing Anupama is now financially
independent through her dance academy and thus not entitled to support.
iii. Custody: Insists on joint custody of Pakhi, asserting his rights as a father.
iv. Property: Denies Anupama's claim on the Shah Mansion, stating it legally belongs to his
father and her contributions (dowry/gold) do not create ownership rights.
v. Acknowledgment: Implicitly unwilling to provide an apology or specific acknowledgment,
seeking a purely transactional settlement.
B. Anurag Basu:
i. Paternity: Hesitates to publicly or legally acknowledge paternity due to fear of damaging his
current marriage and business reputation.
ii. Child Support: Offers private financial support, indicating a willingness to provide financially
but only discreetly.
iii. Inheritance/Status: Avoids commitment on legal status or inheritance rights, likely linked to
his reluctance for public acknowledgment.
iv. Transparency: Strongly prefers a private, confidential arrangement to avoid public scandal
and legal complications stemming from formal acknowledgment. Expresses emotional
remorse but prioritizes minimizing disruption to his current life.
5. OBSERVATIONS OF CONCILIATOR
●​ Common Themes: Both cases highlight the tension between demands for legal
rights/dignity (Anupama, Prerna) and desires for discreet, low-obligation exits
(Vanraj, Anurag). Emotional factors (betrayal, hurt, need for respect) are deeply
intertwined with legal claims (maintenance, paternity, property).
●​ Anupama & Vanraj: Anupama has strong moral and potentially equitable claims
regarding maintenance and property based on her long-term, non-financial
contributions, even if legal title complicates the property issue. Vanraj's argument
about her current income might reduce but not necessarily eliminate maintenance
entitlement under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, considering the duration of the
marriage and past sacrifices. Pakhi's age (18) means her own wishes regarding
living arrangements are paramount under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
making a "custody" order less relevant than an agreement on support and access
respecting her choices. The claim regarding the house requires careful
consideration of evidence related to the use of dowry/gold for renovations,
potentially creating an equitable interest or a right to reimbursement, possibly
invoking aspects of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
regarding rights in a shared household. Achieving acknowledgment may require
creative, non-monetary solutions.
●​ Prerna & Anurag: Prerna's claim for paternity recognition is legally strong,
potentially confirmable via DNA testing if contested. A child's right to identity and
support from both parents is well-established. Anurag's concerns about
reputation are practical but hold little legal weight against a paternity claim. The
core issue is balancing Prerna's legitimate demand for legal status and support
for Sneha with Anurag's desire for discretion. A compromise might involve legal
acknowledgment through less public means (e.g., court declaration vs. public
announcement) coupled with a robust, legally binding support agreement.
 Inheritance rights are complex and usually determined by succession laws/wills,
but acknowledging paternity is the first crucial step.
●​ Legal Framework: The conciliation must operate within the framework of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (divorce, maintenance), the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 (custody/welfare principles, though less binding at 18), potentially the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (right to reside/equitable
relief), and general principles of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for settlement
agreements) and potentially Specific Relief Act, 1963 (if specific performance of
promises is argued, though less likely here). Paternity is typically dealt with under
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and procedures under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sec 125 for maintenance).
●​ Potential for Settlement: Both cases present opportunities for mutually
agreeable solutions balancing financial realities, legal rights, and emotional
needs, which is the primary goal of conciliation.

6. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (PROPOSED OUTLINE - Requires Party

Agreement)

(This section outlines a potential structure for agreement, subject to negotiation and
acceptance by the parties)

A. Anupama Shah & Vanraj Shah:

i. Divorce: Divorce by Mutual Consent granted under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
ii. Maintenance: A mutually agreed lump sum settlement of ₹[Agreed Amount, e.g., 20 Lakhs]
paid by Vanraj to Anupama in full and final settlement of all past, present, and future
maintenance claims, acknowledging her contributions to the marriage. (Alternatively:
Time-bound monthly maintenance).
iii. Child: Parties acknowledge Pakhi is 18. She will reside as per her wishes. Both parents
retain rights of access/visitation as mutually agreed with Pakhi. Vanraj agrees to contribute
[Specific Amount/Percentage] towards Pakhi's higher education expenses until
[Age/Completion of Degree].
iv. Property: Anupama relinquishes any claim over the Shah Mansion. Vanraj (or his father)
agrees to pay Anupama an additional sum of ₹[Agreed Amount, e.g., 5 Lakhs] in recognition
of funds (dowry/gold) utilized during the marriage for household assets/renovations. Anupama
to vacate the premises (if applicable) by [Date].
v. Acknowledgment: Vanraj provides a written statement acknowledging Anupama's
dedication and contributions as a wife and mother over 26 years, expressing regret for the
pain caused by the breakdown of the marriage. (Wording to be mutually agreed).
vi. Other: Clauses on non-interference, withdrawal of any other pending complaints/cases.
B. Prerna Basu & Anurag Basu:
i. Paternity: Anurag formally acknowledges paternity of Sneha via [Method: e.g., a registered
deed of acknowledgment / joint application for declaration by court, ensuring legal validity].
Parties agree on a level of confidentiality regarding the public announcement, balancing
Sneha's dignity and Anurag's concerns [Specify agreed terms, e.g., acknowledgment in
relevant legal/school documents but no press statements].
ii. Child Support: Anurag agrees to pay monthly child support of ₹[Agreed Amount] for
Sneha's upbringing, plus actual costs of education (school fees, tuition, related expenses)
until she attains the age of [e.g., 21 or completion of first degree]. Amount to be revised [e.g.,
biennially] based on inflation/needs. Possibly creation of a trust fund for Sneha's higher
education/future.
iii. Legal Status/Inheritance: The legal acknowledgment confirms Sneha's status as Anurag's
daughter with associated rights under law. Any specific agreement regarding inheritance
beyond legal entitlement [e.g., specific provision in will, lump sum in lieu] to be documented if
agreed.
iv. Confidentiality & Conduct: Parties agree to maintain confidentiality regarding the
negotiation process and specific financial details (unless legally required). They agree to
interact respectfully regarding Sneha and refrain from public disparagement.
v. Other: Clauses on visitation/access rights for Anurag (if desired and appropriate),
mechanism for communication regarding Sneha, withdrawal of other claims.