Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 522 (KAR)

R. Sanjay v. G. Suma

2011-05-25

ARALI NAGARAJ, N.K.PATIL

body2011
JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.3.2009 passed in M.C. No. 212/2005 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent. During the course of their submission, they have filed a Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, dated 21st April, 2011, duly signed by both the parties and attested by them. Therefore, they submitted that, the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said compromise petition. 3. The compromise petition dated 25th May, 2011 reads as under: Under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151, C.P.C. read with Sections 10(A) and 45 of the Indian Divorce Act, the Appellant and Respondent beg to submit as follows-- 1. This Appeal arises out of the Order of Dismissal of the Petition for decree of divorce filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and the same is pending as both the parties are Christians and domiciles of Bangalore. 2. At the intervention of well wishers the petitioner and respondent have settled their dispute as detailed below. Both the parties admits that there is no consummation of marriage between them and admit that both lived only for few days in the house of the appellant and are living apart since November 2003. Both of them have been making allegations and counter allegations against each other and respondent has filed C. Mis. 440 of 2005 against the appellant on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City which has been allowed on 31.12.2010 and the appellant has filed R.P. 30 of 2011 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the same. Respondent has also filed Criminal Case in CC No. 18313 of 2008 against the appellant which is pending on the file of the 7th Addl. CMM, Bangalore City. She has also filed petition M.C.969 of 2009 which is pending on the file of the 6th Addl. Family Court, Bangalore City against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending. 3. Both submit that there is no meeting point between them and continuation of the marriage tie will lead to disastrous situations and neither of them can live peacefully. Family Court, Bangalore City against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending. 3. Both submit that there is no meeting point between them and continuation of the marriage tie will lead to disastrous situations and neither of them can live peacefully. Both admit they have no issues as the marriage is not consummated. Both have been making allegations and counter allegations and have come to the definite conclusion that they cannot live together and there is no meaning in continuing the marriage tie between them and both of them agree that they are not able to live together and they mutually agree that the marriage dated 17.1.2003 between the appellant and the respondent may kindly be dissolved and decree of divorce be granted. 4. Both the parties submit that they have entered into this mutual decree of divorce and this compromise petition out of their own wish, desire and volition and there is no collusion or threat, or force and they are residents of Bangalore. 5. Appellant has this day paid a total sum of Rs. 5,15,000 by 3 demand drafts all dated 21.5.2011 all drawn on SBM. NIHMANS Branch, Bangalore bearing Nos. 185847, 185848 and 185842 for Rs. 2,00,000, Rs. 1,65,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively to the respondent as permanent alimony as demanded by the respondent and the respondent admits receipts of the above amount in full quittance of her all claims which includes the amount due till now as ordered in C. Mis. 4.40 of 2005 and there are no other dues. Respondent agrees that the amount of Rs. 5,000 deposited by the appellant in this appeal may be withdrawn by the appellant himself for which she has no objection. Respondent further admits that the Revision Petition No. RP 30/2011 may kindly be allowed and C. Mis. 440 of 2005 may kindly be dismissed in view of the settlement arrived at in this appeal. Respondent agrees to withdrawn the criminal case C.C. No. 18313 of 2008 and M.C. 969 of 2009 filed by her against the appellant. Respondent further admits that the Revision Petition No. RP 30/2011 may kindly be allowed and C. Mis. 440 of 2005 may kindly be dismissed in view of the settlement arrived at in this appeal. Respondent agrees to withdrawn the criminal case C.C. No. 18313 of 2008 and M.C. 969 of 2009 filed by her against the appellant. Thus all the matters by and between the appellant and respondent are all fully and finally settled, satisfied and discharged and that there is no other amount, article or thing is due or owing by the one to the other on any count whatsoever and respondent further admits that she has no claim of any kind whatsoever against the appellant or his property. 6. The appeal may be allowed granting dissolution of the marriage dated 17.1.2003 performed at St. Lukes Community Hall, Chamarajpet, Bangalore City, between the appellant and respondent by mutual consent in terms of the compromise petition, the parties bearing their own costs. 4. Placing the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties and the terms and conditions of the Compromise Petition as stated supra on record, the instant appeal is allowed in pan granting dissolution of the marriage dated 17.1.2003 performed at St. Lukes Community Hall, Chamarajpet, Bangalore City, between the appellant and respondent by mutual consent in terms of the compromise petition. Ordered accordingly.