Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Vuda Madhusudhana Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3986 Of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11516 of 2024)
Decided On : 12-09-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Divorce by mutual consent – Settlement Agreement has been signed by concerned parties, their respective Counsel and Mediator – All inter se proceedings between parties have been concluded/closed – Parties shall strictly abide by terms and conditions of Settlement – Amount of Rs.45,00,00/- deposited by appellant in Registry of this Court towards welfare of minor son, shall be transferred by Registry of this Court, along with interest accrued thereon, in favour of respondent-wife – Corpus shall not be used for any purpose other than needs and welfare of minor son, including his day-to-day expenses as well as educational requirements – Mother shall be the best Judge of such needs, and her decision in this regard shall not be questioned – Any consequential action taken by concerned authorities in respect of Court notices shall also stand withdrawn by authorities concerned – Since all inter se proceedings between parties have been concluded/closed, authorities in possession of appellant’s Passport directed to return the same to him. (Paras 9, 11, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Both the parties have submitted that the dispute inter se between the parties has been resolved by mutual consent during mediation, and pursuant thereto, a joint application being I.A. No. 115186/2025 has been filed seeking invocation of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, for dissolution of their marriage by mutual content.
Findings of Court:
Notwithstanding any clause of settlement agreement between parties in this order shall have any adverse impact on claim of son, upon him attaining the age of majority, towards any of his relatives including his parents, in relation to assets, both movable and immovable to which he may be entitled to in law on the basis of his blood relationship with said party.
Result : Criminal appeal disposed of.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. As the wife and minor son of the appellant were not initially parties to the present proceedings, I.A.No.228678/2024 for their impleadment as respondents is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
4. The appellant-husband is present in Court. The respondent-wife is represented by learned Senior Counsel and has also joined the proceedings through virtual mode. The parties have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. Both the parties have submitted that the dispute inter se between the parties has been resolved by mutual consent during mediation, and pursuant thereto, a joint application being I.A. No.115186/2025 has been filed seeking invocation of our
6. For ready reference, the Settlement Agreement dated 23.04.2025 entered into between the parties, which is on record, is reproduced below:-
This AGREEMENT is made at New Delhi on this 23d day of April 2025
BETWEEN
MR. MADHUSUDANA RAO VUDA @ MADHUSUDANA RAO YELLA (Birth Date: 22.04.1981) S/o Vuda Mallem Kondaiah, R/o 2-73, Vishwanadharao Pet, Bitragunta, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- 524142, hereinafter referred as the FIRST PARTY/Husband of the ONE PART.
AND
MS. RAJESWARI GUBBALA @ NIRMALA VUDA (Birth Date: 16.07.1985), D/o MadhusudhanaRao Gubbala, R/o D. No. 3- 142/8, Madhavapatnam, Samalkot, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh-533005, hereinafter will be referred as the SECOND PARTY/Wife of the OTHER PART.
1. WHEREAS both the parties mean and include their respective assignee, agents, legal heirs, attorneys, representatives, successors, executors and administrator etc.
2. AND WHEREAS the marriage between the parties herein was solemnized on 06.01.2013 at Buddha samaj, Eluru, the same was registered on 11.01.2013 at Marriage registrar office, Palakollu. Later the said marriage was performed on 29.05.2013 at Doddipatla in accordance with Hindu Rites, Custom and Ceremonies. The said marriage was consummated and subsequently parties stayed together for a period for 2 years and from the said wedlock, only one child was born namely Master Sriman Narayana Vuda on 14.04.2014. During this period of co-habitation temperamental differences and matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, which led to separation of both parties and living separately since July 2015. After which, the second party filed criminal cases against the first party, his mother and sister on 03.03.2021. Details of which are as under:
(a) FIR bearing No.34/ 2021 dated 03.03.2021 with sections 498 (A), 420 IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act, P.S. Disha Women Police station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh filed by the Second Party against the First Party and his mother and sister.
(b) A Complaint Case bearing No. 888 of 2022 titled as "State Inspector of Police, Disha Women PS, Kakinada v. Vuda Madhusudhana Rao & Ors." Filed before the Ld. I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh under Sections 498 (A) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter will be referred to as "IPC") and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 arising out of FIR No. 34/ 2021 dated 03.03.2021 registered in Women Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh lodged by Second Party.
(c) A Criminal Leave Petition (hereinafter will be referred as "CRL.L.P.") titled as "Vuda Lakshmamma v. The State of AP" bearing No. 2485/ 2024 is filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by the Mother (Vuda Lakshmamma) and sister (Dasari Thanuja) of First Party for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 34/2021 dated 03.03.2021 and Complaint Case No.888/ 2022.
(d) A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition bearing No.215 of 2024 in CC No. 888/2022 was allowed by the Ld. I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh to impound the Canada passport of the first party (Canada Passport No.: P639853QS), order dated 04.04.2024.
(e) A Criminal Leave Petition titled as "Vuda Madhusudhana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh" bearing No
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
