Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2616 (MAD)

R. Durairaj v. Rohini

2007-08-18

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

body2007
Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. This appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court dated 14. 2006 made in HMOP No. 413 of 2001 wherein the O.P. filed by the appellant herein for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) has been dismissed. When the O.P.was pending before the Family Court, the respondent wife filed an application in I.A.No.465 of 2002 for return of articles. The said petition was partly allowed by the Family Court. The respondent wife aggrieved against the said order made in I.A.No.465 of 2002 filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No. 1634 of 2007. When the revision petition was taken up for disposal, the parties to the proceedings i.e., both wife and husband filed a Joint Memo of Compromise agreeing to the following terms and conditions:- a). The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent will stand dissolved. b). The respondent agrees to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner towards all claims whatsoever the petitioner has and may have against the respondent and the respondent agrees to receive the same. Accordingly the respondent today paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs only) in cash and the petitioner acknowledges the receipt of the same. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and fifty thousand only ) will be paid to the petitioner directly on or before 8. 2007. c) On receipt of the above said sum the petitioner will withdraw Crl. Appeal No. 396 /2005 and Crl.R.C.No.1067 of 2006 both pending before this Honble Court. d) The appeal in CMA No.2743 of 2006 before this Honble Court may be allowed in view of the consent for divorce given by the petitioner for granting a decree of divorce. e) The respondent will permit the petitioner to take the articles as ordered in I.A.No.465/2002 on the file of the Family Court at Coimbatore by order dated 14. 2006. (f) The petitioner and the respondent both have no other claims against each other. Recording the same the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court on 30.7.2007. 2. e) The respondent will permit the petitioner to take the articles as ordered in I.A.No.465/2002 on the file of the Family Court at Coimbatore by order dated 14. 2006. (f) The petitioner and the respondent both have no other claims against each other. Recording the same the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court on 30.7.2007. 2. When the appeal is taken up today, learned counsel appearing for either side submitted that the appeal may be allowed in view of the Joint Memo of Compromise filed in the Civil Revision Petition, wherein the parties have categorically agreed to the effect that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent would stand dissolved and further the appeal in C.M.A.No.2743 of 2006 pending before this Court may be allowed in view of the consent given by the wife for granting a decree of divorce. They have also produced before this Court the copy of the order passed in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2007 dated 30.7.2007. 3. We have seen the order passed in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2007 dated 30.7.2007, wherein the Civil Revision Petition has been allowed in terms of the joint memo of compromise entered into between both the parties and further in that order it is finally stated that the Joint Memo of Compromise would form part of the order dated 30.7.2007. In the Joint Memo of Compromise it is agreed between the parties that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent would stand dissolved and the present appeal in C.M.A.No.2743 of 2006 may be allowed in view of the consent given by the wife for divorce. 4. Therefore, recording the statement made by the learned counsel on either side and also having regard to the order dated 30.7.2007 made in C.R.P.No. 1634 of 2007 and the copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise filed before this Court, the order of the Family Court dated 14. 2006, which is impugned in the appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed by granting the decree for divorce in favour of the appellant. No costs.