KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N.K. Patil and Mrs. Rathnakala, JJ.
Swaroopa Rani —Appellant
versus
Rajendrareddy —Respondent
M. F. A. No.2740 of 2013 (FC)
Decided on 17.2.2016
Result: Appeal disposed of.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3rd August 2012, passed in M.C. No.2335/2011, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed by respondent/husband u/s. 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on 26/04/2001.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent. The appellant and respondent are present before the Court and their presence is placed on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent, during the course of submission, submitted that the instant appeal may be disposed of as per the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 6th January, 2016 filed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation)Rules, 2007, and the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 26/04/2001 may be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, as stated supra, is placed on record.
5. The Memorandum of Agreement dated 6th January 2016 entered into between the parties before the Bangalore Mediation Centre, duly signed by the appellant and respondent and attested by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties is placed on record. The terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement read thus:
“I. Whereas, the appellant and the respondent are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 26.04.2001 at Srisailam Temple, Andhra Pradesh. The Appellant and the respondent herein are collectively called as Parties. They have been blessed with a son Sanath R Reddy now aged nine (9) years. Disputes arose between the parties and they approached the Courts for redressal. They have been residing separately since 8 years. During the course of the aforesaid proceedings, the matter was referred to Mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of Mediation, the Appellant and the Respondent on their own volition and without any coercion have resolved their disputes and mutually agreed for the following terms and conditions:
(i) Consent by both the parties:
Both the parties agree that their marriage solemnized on 26.04.2001 at Srisailam Temple, Andhra Pradesh, be dissolved by a decree of divorce.
(ii) Claims by both Parties:
(a) Both the parties herein have agreed that the Respondent shall pay the Appellant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in full and final settlement of her claims of alimony, maintenance and similar claims past, present or future whatsoever against the Respondent. The amount shall be paid by way of Demand Draft/s drawn in the name of Smt. Swaroopa Rani, the Appellant herein, payable before this Hon”ble Court at the time of taking on record this Memorandum of Agreement, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03/08/2012 passed in M.C. No.2335/2011 passed by the Addl. Principal Family Judge, Family Court- IV, Bangalore dissolving their marriage solemnized between them on 26.04.2001 at Srisailam, Andhra Pradesh.
(b) Both the parties have exchanged all their mutual articles. Both the parties agree that apart from the above claims, there are no other claims whatsoever against each other, past, present and future. Any property acquired by each of them shall be their exclusive property and neither of them shall have a claim on them.
(c) Both of them undertake not to interfere in the lives of each other in future.
(d) The Appellant undertakes not to initiate any proceedings either civil or criminal against Respondent and/or on his either civil or criminal against respondent and/or on his relatives at any time in future.
(iii) Custody of their son “Sanath R Reddy” and Visitation Rights to the Respondent
Both the Pa
SupremeToday
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.