IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA MFA No.4443/2015 [FC] C/w.
MFA No.4835/2015 [FC] IN MFA No.4443/2015:
BETWEEN :
MR. JAYADEEP MANJESHWAR S/O. DEVENDRA MANJESHWAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT FLAT No.9/125, KASTURBA KUNJ, 10TH SEWRI-WADALA 31, MUMBAI – 400 093 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRABHAKARA L. SHETTY, ADV.) AND :
MRS. GAYATHRI SUVARNA D/O. RAMADAS SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT ‘GAYATHRI NILAYA’, 4TH CROSS ROAD, KADRI SHIVABAGH MANGALURU – 575 002 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 19[1] OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.4.2015 PASSED IN MC No.331/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 13 [1][ia] OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
IN MFA No.4835/2015:
BETWEEN :
MRS. GAYATHRI SUVARNA D/O. B. RAMDAS AGED 26 YEARS R/AT ‘GAYATHRI NIVAS’, 4TH CROSS ROAD, KADRI SHIVABAGH MANGALURU – 575 002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADV.) AND :
MR. JAYADEEP MANJESHWAR S/O. DEVENDRA MANJESHWAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT FLAT No.9/125, KASTURBA KUNJ, 10TH SEEWRI- WADALA-31, WORKING PLACE AREA SALES MANAGER CITADEL, WEALTH ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD., P.S. PLASTIC INDUSTRIES A/10-2ND FLOOR, ANDHERI [E], MUMBAI – 400 093 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRABHAKARA L. SHETTY, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 19[1] OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.4.2015 PASSED IN MC No.331/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 13 [1][ia] OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Both the appeals arise from the common Judgment and Order passed by the Family Court, Mangaluru, in Matrimonial Case No.331/2014, whereby the marriage between the husband and wife was dissolved and further permanent alimony of Rs.8 lakhs was fixed and was directed to be paid within the prescribed time limit.
2. We may record that the Appellant-husband has preferred the appeal so far as the quantification of amount of permanent alimony whereas the Respondent- wife has preferred the appeal against the decree of divorce.
3. This matter was heard earlier and the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, after suggestions and counter suggestions, had found that if the allegations made before the trial Court are withdrawn by the husband, the Respondent-wife may not object to the decree of divorce. Further, so far as the amount of permanent alimony is concerned, the Appellant-husband was agreeable for payment.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we had asked the parties to put it in writing by way of a joint memo. The said joint memo is tendered today. The said joint memo reads as under:
“Pursuant to the Order dated 5.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above appeal, the Appellant has made the full payment of Rs.8 lakhs to the Respondent and the Respondent has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
With an intention to put an end to litigation between the Petitioner and Respondent, the Petitioner and Respondent state that they have withdrawn the allegation against each other in M.C. No.331 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Mangalore and further pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to confirm the Decree of their Divorce on the ground of desertion in M.C. No.331 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Mangalore, in the interest of justice.”
5. The aforesaid memo is duly signed by the Appellant-husband and the Respondent-wife. As a proof of identity, the Appellant-husband has produced copy of the PAN Card No.AKQPM2705C and the Respondent-wife has also produced the copy of the Aadhaar Card No.4307 7828 4015.
6. Mr. Prabhakara Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-husband and Mr. P.P. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- wife, have identified their respective clients and they have further declared before us that they have also signed the joint memo.
7. The Appellant-husband as well as the Respondent-wife have declared before us that they have signed the joint memo voluntarily and there is no coercion or any pressure upon them.
8. It has been prayed that in view of the above, both the appeals may be disposed of, but with the observation that the allegation made by the Appellant- husband against the Respondent-wife or Respondent- wife against the Appellant-husband are withdrawn.
9. In our view, as such, it is a family dispute between the husband-wife and they are living separately since long. Further, both are agreeable for divorce and the permanent alimony of Rs.8 lakhs. Therefore, the settlement arrived between both the parties, namely, the husband and wife can be allowed to operate. No other adverse circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court.
10. In the circumstances, both the appeals are disposed of, with the observation that the allegations made by the husband and wife against each other shall stand withdrawn. No order as to cost.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-
Sd/- JUDGE