THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY F.C.A.M.P.No.414 of 2014 and F.C.A. No.101 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy) The unsuccessful petitioner filed the appeal against the order dated 22.10.2013 passed in O.P.No.980 of 2011 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The appellant – petitioner filed the petition, under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Trial Court, seeking annulment of the marriage between him and the respondent. However, during the pendency of this appeal, both the parties entered into compromise and filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC settling the dispute between them.
Demand draft bearing No.499211, dated 07.10.2014 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Mehdipatnam Branch payable at Kakinada in favour of the respondent; demand draft bearing No.499212 dated 07.10.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Mehdipatnam Branch payable at Kakinada in favour of the respondent; and demand draft bearing No.858225 dated 09.10.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Kakatiyanagar Branch, Mehdipatnam Branch payable at Kakinada in favour of the respondent have been handed over in the open Court, receipt of which is acknowledged by the respondent and her counsel.
The parties also filed the terms of compromise along with the petition. The parties are identified by both the advocates on record. The terms and conditions of compromise were read over and explained to both parties and admitted to be true and correct. Hence, we are satisfied that the compromise is not due to any collusion between the parties.
Accordingly, FCA.MP.No.414 of 2014 is allowed.
In view of the settlement of dispute, the appeal is allowed in terms of compromise.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date:15.10.2014 usd