HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
F.C.A M.P No.292 OF 2014 IN/AND
F.C.A. No.386 OF 2013 AND
F.C.A. No. 367 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
F.C.A. No.386 of 2013 is preferred by appellant – husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 01-06-2013, in O.P. No.886 of 2009, passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. F.C.A. No.367 of 2013 is also preferred by the appellant – husband, aggrieved by the order, dated 01-06-2013, in O.P. No.282 of 2011 passed by the very same Judge.
2. O.P. No.886 of 2009 was filed by the appellant herein under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) & (1A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent – wife, and the same was dismissed by the Court below, whereas, O.P. No.282 of 2011 filed by the wife - respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed by the Court below.
3. During the pendency of these appeals, F.C.A.
M.P. No.292 of 2014 in F.C.A. No.386 of 2013 is filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to record compromise entered into between them. In the memorandum of compromise filed in support of the petition, it is stated by the parties that during the pendency of these appeals, at the intervention of elders, the disputes between them have been settled and they have decided to obtain a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage, and accordingly, the same was reduced into writing by way of memorandum of compromise. As per the terms of the said compromise, it is agreed by the appellant – husband to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the respondent – wife towards permanent alimony and, accordingly, obtained demand draft bearing No.285361, dated 14-06-2014 from Canara Bank, Chennekothapalli Branch of Anantapur District in the name of the respondent.
4. Today, when the mater is called, both the parties are present, and they are identified by their respective counsel. On being questioned, both the parties have stated that the disputes between them are amicably settled, and hence, requested to dispose of the appeals by recording the terms of compromise and grant a decree of divorce, dissolving their marriage. The appellant – husband has also handed over the aforesaid demand draft to the respondent – wife and she acknowledged the receipt of the same.
5. In view of the request made by the parties and having regard to the terms mentioned in the memorandum of compromise filed in support of the application, F.C.A.M.P. No.292 of 2014 is allowed as prayed for.
6. Consequently, F.C.A. No.386 of 2013 is allowed, dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent by way of decree of divorce in terms of the compromise entered by them. The terms of memorandum of compromise shall form part of the decree. Since F.C.A. No.386 of 2013 is allowed granting divorce to the parties, as the parties sought for divorce on mutual consent, F.C.A. No.367 of 2013 stands dismissed as infructuous, as the cause therein does not survive. No order as to costs.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals, stand disposed of.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J July 17, 2014.
Mgr