Allowed

Ashok Sivram Bharati v. Sangita Ashok Bharti

Bombay HC21 Aug 2007FCA/44/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, hearing an appeal and a civil application along with it, recorded the draft consent terms submitted by the parties. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and allowed the matter to be remitted to the Family Court, Pune, for disposal in accordance with the agreed consent terms after satisfying requirements under CPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court for disposal based on consent terms.

Ashok Sivram Bharati Vs Sangita Ashok Bharti — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2006

¶4

ALONGWITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 476 OF 2006

ASHOK S BHARTI

... APPELLANT.

VS.

SANTITA A. BHARATI ... RESPONDENT.

¶10

MANGESH M.D. PATEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

¶11

SIDHARTH KARPE H/F. YKS LEGAL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

¶12

CORAM: J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed,JJ.

¶13

DATE : August 21, 2007.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

2.		The	learned	Counsel f	or the pa	rties submit t	hat
this	Court	may	qua	sh and	set	aside	the	im	pugned	Order	and
direct	that		the	matter	be	sent back		to	the	Family	Court,
Pune,	where		matrimon	ial	dispute	is		pending		adjudication,	to
enable	the		parties	to	file	the con	sent	ter	ms,	a draft	of
which	is		tendered	by	the	learned	Co	unsel	for	the	parties
across	the	bar,	duly	signed	by	them.		It	is	submitted	that,
as	the	parties	hav	e now	w	orked out		an	amica	ble s	ettlement
out	of		Court,	the	matrim	onial dis	pute	pe	nding	before	the

¶17

Family Court can be disposed of accordingly and parties

¶18

would put an end to the litigation.

¶19

In view of this, we take the draft consent terms on record and mark the same as "X’ for the purpose of

¶20

identification. By consent the impugned Order is quashed

¶21

and set aside.

¶22

4.		The earned Counsel	for th	e parties mak	e a sta	tement
before	this	Court that	the	consent	ter	ms would be	fled	in
the	Family	Court within	a	period	of	two weeks	from	today.
Accepting		the statement,		this C	ourt	directs the		Registrar
(Judicial)		to immediately		despatch		the r	ecord	and
proceedings		to the Fam	ily	Court	at	Pune, which	would	reach

¶23

the Family Court, Pune, without fail, on or before 27th

¶24

August, 2007.

¶25

5.	We	will highl	y appreciate	that the Fa	mily Court
would	dispose	of	the	matrimonia	l disput	e pendin	g befor	e it
as	expeditiously	as	possible,	on	being	presented	with	the
consent	terms	duly	signed	by	the	parties	and	after

¶26

satisfying itself about the requirements under Order XIII,

¶27

Rule 3 of CPC for recording the consent terms.

¶28

6.	I	n view	of the fa	ct that this	Court has q	uashed and
set	aside	the	i	mpugned	Order,	parties	are	free	to	file
consent	terms	in	the	Family	Court,	so	that	the	matter	can
be	disposed	of	by	the	Family	Court,in	acco	rdance	with	the

¶29

terms and conditions recorded in the consent terms and a

¶30

decree can be drawn up accordingly.

¶31

In view of the above circumstance, Appeal stands

¶32

disposed of. The C.A. does not survive and the same is

¶33

disposed of accordingly.

¶34

[J.N.Patel, J.]

¶35

[A.A.Sayed, J.]

Ashok Sivram Bharati v. Sangita Ashok Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sivram Bharati v. Sangita Ashok Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Dnyansagar Litho Press

iqbal rehman shaikh Vs the muncipal corporation gr. mumbai and Anr.

Chunilal Odhavji Jain and Ors. Vs Charity Commissioner.

1. Yellappa Gangaram Kurhade D/H. 1a Suresh Yellappa Kurhade and Ors. Vs 1. Shri. Vishwanath Dattatraya Karhadkar and Ors.

Shailendra Singh Devendra Singh Sikarwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Precision Tools Vs Pune Labour Union and Anr.