IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL & THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR M.F.A.No.4188/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri M.E.Basavaraj, S/o M.Eshwarappa, Aged about 49 years, R/o ‘Sudharshana’, B-Block, Vinobhanagara, Shivamogga – 577204. … APPELLANT (By Sri Varun Jayakumar Patil, Adv.) AND:
Smt. Leelambika @ Leela @ Asha @ Neelambika, W/o M.E.Basavaraj, R/o Lakshmipura, Hiremagaluru – 577102, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. … RESPONDENT (By Sri K.G.Sadashivaiah, Adv.) This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2017 passed in M.C.No.13/2014 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, B.S.PATIL, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Family Court in MC.No.13/2014 dismissing the petition filed by the husband seeking decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, both parties have settled their dispute. They have filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. Both parties are present before the Court. They are identified by their learned counsel. They have stated in the compromise petition that for the last 16 years there was no conjugal relationship between them and efforts made by elders from both sides to settle the dispute have not yielded any fruitful result.
3. Appellant and respondent have got two male children.
Both of them agree that all the responsibilities of the children including their educational and medical expenses would be borne by the appellant herein and that the children will have every right to visit their mother – respondent. Appellant has agreed to pay `30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) to the respondent as permanent alimony in full and final settlement of the claim made by her. Initial sum of `10,00,000/- has been paid by way of DD bearing No.008442 dated 13.12.2017 drawn on Bank of India in favour of respondent. Balance amount of `20,00,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by the second week of March, 2018.
4. Respondent Smt.Leelambika @ Leela, who is present before the Court and who is identified by her counsel Sri K.G.Sadashivaiah, for the queries of the Court, states emphatically that terms and conditions of compromise have been explained to her by her learned counsel by translating the same in Kannada language and that she has set her signature to the petition voluntarily after understanding the contents thereof. Even to the queries of the Court, she has stated that she has agreed for divorce by mutual consent in terms stated in the compromise petition, so also the appellant – husband Mr.M.E.Basavaraj agrees to the terms and conditions. He states that he has set his signature voluntarily after fully understanding the contents of the same which has been explained in Kannada language by the advocate.
5. We are satisfied that both parties have voluntarily agreed for dissolution of their marriage and for the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition and there is no impediment in law to grant the prayer sought for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
6. Accordingly, petition filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act is allowed. Marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 04.10.1992 at Veerashaiva Kalyana Mandira, Shivamogga is hereby dissolved by mutual consent on conditions as agreed to between the parties in terms of the compromise filed. Registry is directed to draw up the decree accordingly. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to make necessary application in case the balance amount is not paid to her as agreed. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PKS