Allowed

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam v. Smt. Savitha Seetharam

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2020CCC/1236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of contempt petitions between a separated couple, with their matrimonial appeal, was taken up after the parties settled all disputes. The court allowed the joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent, waived the six-month waiting period and disposed of all connected cases, reserving orders on custody of the minor child.

What did the court decide?

Marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act; statutory waiting period under Section 13B(2) waived; settlement terms accepted; all connected cases disposed of.

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam Vs Smt… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

C.C.C.No.1236/2015, C.C.C.No.1144/2016, C.C.C.No.1381/2016, C.C.C.No.656/2016, C.C.C.No.673/2016, C.C.C.No.680/2016, C.C.C.No.711/2016, C.C.C.No.810/2016, C.C.C.No.991/2016, C.C.C.No.422/2017 AND M.F.A.No.4749/2019

¶9

IN C.C.C.No.1236/2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

¶12

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. … Accused (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Advocate)

¶13

¶14

This CCC is filed under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, by the Complainant (Party-InPerson), wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to punish the Accused for disobeying the Order dated:12.03.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court in MFA.No.137/2015 vide Annexure-A, Order dated:21.11.2014 passed by the Court of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in G and WC.No.101/2012 vide Annexure-B and Order Dated:30.05.2015 passed in Ex.C.No.76/2015 vide Annexure-C.

¶15

IN C.C.C.No.1144/2016

¶16

BETWEEN:

¶17

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, Aged about 40 years, Son of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy, Residing at No.1619, Vaishnavi, 5^th ‘B’ Cross, BSK 1^st Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru – 560 050. … Complainant

¶18

(By Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam (Party in Person))

¶19

AND: Sri. H.N.Venkatachalaiah, Aged about 52 years, Son of Late Sri. Venkataramanappa Police Inspector, Malleswaram Police Station, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 004. … Accused

¶20

This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, by the complainant (Party in Person), wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to punish the Accused for civil contempt of Court for contempt of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.43448/2016 Dated 11.08.2016, A certified copy of

¶21

¶22

which attached herewith at Annexure-A for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶23

IN C.C.C.No.1381/2016

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

Ms. Savitha Seetharam, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu, Aged about 38 years, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru- 560 055. … Complainant (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Advocate) AND: Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, Son of R.K. Vijayasarathy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.1619, Vaishnavi, 5^th ‘B’ Cross, BSK 1^st Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru – 560 050. Now Residing at: No.600, 4^th Main, 3^rd Cross, R.B.I Layout, 7^th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 78. … Accused (By Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam (Party-in-Person))

¶26

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act 1971 by the complainant, wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to allow this petition by proceeding against and punishing the Accused for contempt of Court for violating the order dated 08/09/2016 in CCC.No.1236/2015 c/w M.F.A.No.137/2015 and M.F.A.No.1536/2015 vide Annexure-A.

IN C.C.C.No.656/2016

BETWEEN:

(By Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam (Party-in-Person))

¶32

AND:

¶33

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu and Sudha Seetharam, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055.

¶34

Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.

¶35

Ms. Catherina Koshy, Major, National Academy for Learning, 3^rd Corss, 3^rd Main, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwaranagar 3^rd Phase, Bengaluru – 560 079. … Accused

¶36

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act (1971), by the complainant, wherein he prays that the

¶37

¶38

Hon’ble High Court be pleased to (i) punish Accused No.1 for Civil Contempt of Court for violation of the Decree of the Family Court in G & WC No.101/2012 Dated 21.11.2014, A certified copy of which is produced herewith at Annexure-‘A. (ii) Take Suo-Moto cognizance of Criminal contempt of this Hon’ble Court and the Family Court by Accused No.1 and No.2 .

IN C.C.C.No.673/2016

BETWEEN:

AND:

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu and Sudha Seetharam, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.

¶44

Ms. Catherina Koshy, Major, Principal, National Academy for Learning, 3^rd Corss, 3^rd Main, West of Chord Road,

¶45

¶46

Basaveshwaranagar 3^rd Phase, Bangalore – 560 079. … Accused

¶47

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the Party-in-Person(Complainant), wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to (i) punish Accused No.1 for Civil Contempt of Court for Violation of the Decree of the Family Court in G and WC No.101/2012 dated 21/11/2014, a certified copy of which is produced herewith at Annexure-A and Etc.

IN C.C.C.No.680/2016

BETWEEN:

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu and Sudha Seetharam, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055.

¶52

Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. … Accused (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Advocate)

¶53

¶54

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, by the complainant (Party-In-Person), wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High court be pleased to punish the Accused for Civil Contempt of court for violation of the decree of the Family Court in G and WC No.101/2012 dated 21/11/2014.

¶55

IN C.C.C.No.711/2016

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, Aged about 39 years, Son of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy, Residing at No.1619, Vaishnavi, 5^th ‘B’ Cross, BSK 1^st Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru – 560 050. … Complainant (By Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam (Party-in-Person)) AND: Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu and Sudha Seetharam, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055.

¶58

Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. … Accused (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Advocate)

¶59

¶60

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, by the Complainant (Party In Person), wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to punish the accused for Civil Contempt of court for violation of the decree of the Family Court in G and WC No.101/2012 dated 21.11.2014, a certified copy of which is produced herewith at Annexure-A.

IN C.C.C.No.810/2016

BETWEEN:

Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. … Accused

¶65

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Sections 11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts

¶66

¶67

Act (1971), by the complainant, wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to punish the Accused for Civil Contempt of Court for violation of the order of this Hon’ble Court in M.F.A.No.2776/2014 dated:02/07/2015.

¶68

IN C.C.C.No.991/2016

¶69

BETWEEN:

¶70

Ms. Savitha Seetharam, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu, Aged about 37 years, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 055. … Complainant (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Advocate) AND: Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, Son of R.K. Vijayasarathy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.1619, Vaishnavi, 5^th ‘B’ Cross, BSK 1^st Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru – 560 050. Now Residing at: No.600, 4^th Main, 3^rd Cross, R.B.I Layout, 7^th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 78. … Accused (By Sri. Abhilesh.J, Advocate)

¶71

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Sections 10 and 12 of the contempt of Court Act, 1976, by the complainant, wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to allow this petition, by proceeding against and punishing the accused for contempt of

¶72

¶73

Court for violating the Final Order dated 21/11/2014 in G and W.C.101/2012 at Annexure-“A”.

IN C.C.C.No.422/2017

BETWEEN:

(By Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam (Party-in-Person))

¶78

AND:

¶79

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu and Sudha Seetharam, #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. Also at: Care of Smt. Mariyalu, Wife of S.K.Seetharamu, Micron Electricals Guest House, No.48/3, 02b 02 Andal Apts, Ranga Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. And M-1607, Block M-LYNX, Brigade Gateway, Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶80

Sri. Abhinav Ramanand, Aged about 39 years, Son of A.Ramaswamy, 115, 28^th Cross, 7^th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 082.

¶81

¶82

Also at: Kumar and Kumar Advocates, 113, Central chambers 3^rd Floor, 2^nd Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560 009. … Accused

¶83

This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, by the complainant, wherein he prays that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to punish the accused for Contempt of Court for willful and ongoing violation of the consent Order of this Hon’ble court in MFA No.137/2015 dated 16/10/2015 produced herewith at Annexure-C.

¶84

IN M.F.A.No.4749/2019

¶85

BETWEEN:

¶86

Smt. Savitha Seetharam, Daughter of S.K.Seetharamu Aged about 40 years, Residing at #48, Mathru Sadanam, 10^th Main, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. … Appellant (By Sri. Abhinav.R, Dr. M.Sunilshastry and Smt. Champoo K.S., Advocate)

¶87

AND:

¶88

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, Son of R.K. Vijayasarathy, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.1619, Vaishnavi, 5^th ‘B’ Cross, BSK 1^st Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru – 560 050.

¶89

Also at: No.600, 4^th Main, 3^rd cross, R.B.I.Layout, 7^th Phase,

¶90

¶91

J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru-78. … Respondent

¶92

(By Sri. D.R.Ravishankar along with Smt. Siri Rajashekar, Advocate)

¶93

This MFA is filed under Section 19(1) of FC Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2019 passed in MC No.4767/2015 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, allowing the I.A. filed by the Respondent under order 23 Rule (1)(4)(b) read with section 151 of CPC.

¶94

These CCCs along with MFA coming on for Orders this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

¶95

JUDGMENT

¶96

These matters have been listed before this Bench on several dates.

¶97

Learned counsel for the respective parties made several endeavours for arriving at a settlement between the parties. On several occasions, they stated that they would advise the parties to arrive at a settlement, so that all the disputes between them could be settled finally and the innumerable cases filed by each of them against other would also be concluded and the parties could get rid of all the litigations inter se . There was, however, a small, but

¶98

¶99

significant area of controversy between the parties, which was with regard to the custody of the minor boy . Therefore, on several occasions, this Bench adjourned the cases, so that the parties could arrive at a consensus in that regard also.

¶100

Today, learned counsel for the respective parties in the presence of the parties, who have all appeared in the Court Hall except learned counsel for the husband who has appeared through video conference, submitted that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their disputes and that in MFA.No.4749/2019, a joint petition has been filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They state that the parties do not wish to continue with their marriage which had taken place on 24.05.2002 and that they have decided to live separately and hence, they have prayed for dissolution of

¶101

their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Hence, a petition is filed under Section 13B of the Act.

¶102

¶103

Enumerating the terms of settlement, learned counsel for the respective parties drew our attention to Clause 5 of the terms of settlement and submitted with regard to the custody of the minor child, Aditya Rajiv Ratnam, they have not been able to agree on concrete terms and therefore, they have agreed that this Court may pass an order in relation to the same which may be part and parcel of the settlement.

¶104

Learned counsel for the respective parties stated that the parties have, after due deliberation and with all consciousness have requested this Court to pass orders on the custody of the child.

¶105

Learned counsel for the respective parties also submitted that an application has been filed under Section 13B (2) of the Act. The said application is supported by the joint affidavit of the parties. They have sought for waiver of the statutory waiting period of six months as stipulated under the said sub-section and that the parties have made out a case for allowing the said application also.

¶106

¶107

The parties are present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. When queried by this Court, they submitted in unison that they have indeed agreed to settle their disputes as per the terms indicated in the petition filed by them and that they have done so, after due deliberation and introspection and the settlement has been arrived at on their own free volition and without there being any collusion or undue influence from any side. They submitted that they have indeed agreed to separate and this Court may dissolve their marriage by a decree of mutual consent and they also stated that they do not have any claims whatsoever against each other, monetary or otherwise and their only concern is with regard to appropriate orders being passed by this Court with regard to the custody and visitation rights of their only child.

¶108

They also stated that they would abide by the terms of the compromise inasmuch as they would withdraw the cases filed by them respectively before various Courts, both in India and abroad, as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and that the acceptance of this

¶109

¶110

compromise or settlement between them by this Court would put a quietus to innumerable and protracted litigation inter se between them.

¶111

In the circumstances, we have taken on record the Memorandum of Petition filed under Section 13B of the Act and perused the same. We find that the same is signed by the respective parties as well as their counsel. It is also verified by the parties jointly. The petition is supported by the separate and independent affidavit of the petitioners, but having the same effect. The terms of the Petition read as under:

¶112

“The Petitioners submit as under:

¶113

The petitioner no.1 and the Petitioner no.2 are married as per the Hindu religious rites on 24.05.2002 and from the wed-lock, they have a child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam who is presently 11 years 3 months old.

¶114

The petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 have been residing separately for over 9 years and there is no possibility for both of them staying together and animus to go ahead with their marriage.

¶115

¶116

There are several cases which have been instituted by both of them and at this stage, with the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and good advises, the Petitioner No.1 and the Petitioner No.2 have resolved to amicably settle all the disputes amongst themselves.

¶117

That, since the Petitioner No.1 has agreed that any order in relation to the custody of the minor child that would be passed in the present proceedings by this Hon’ble Court would be adhered to in letter and spirit, the Petitioner No.2 has agreed to concede to the grant of decree of divorce by means of mutual consent and the withdrawal of cases listed in the annexed Schedule and not for any other reason.

¶118

The Parties have agreed to withdraw the cases between them and their family members. The parties have not been able to reach any consensus ad-idem in relation to matters relating to child custody and visitation of their minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam and consequently, they have agreed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order in relation to the same, which shall be part of this settlement.

¶119

The Petitioner No.1 further states that cases in India as referred to in the Schedule A to this

¶120

¶121

petition shall be unconditionally withdrawn by her within a period of 4 weeks from the date of passing orders in the instant petition and an affidavit of undertaking is also filed separately. The Petitioner No.2 shall also withdraw unconditionally, the cases in India referred to in the schedule B to this petition also within a period of 4 weeks from the date of passing orders on the instant petition and an affidavit of undertaking is filed separately. That in the event either party does not withdraw the cases referred to in Schedule A and Schedule B as stated supra and any other case/s against each other or their family members as on date, it shall be lawful for other party to get such of the cases which are not withdrawn to be dismissed on the strength of this petition and orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. In relation to the cases in the United States of America between the parties, both the parties undertake not to take any further steps. In relation to any other matter pending in relation to the petitioners and the child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam, the terms of the present settlement and the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court shall be brought to the notice of the concerned Courts and other authorities.

¶122

Both the parties to give a quietus to long pending litigation have mutually agreed to withdraw all the cases by filing the present

¶123

¶124

petition seeking divorce by mutual consent and both the parties agree to abide by the orders passed by this Hon’ble court in matters pertaining to visitation and custody of the Child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam passed in the paramount welfare and interest of the child, which shall be part of this settlement.

¶125

Both the parties shall not file any cases against each other or their family members or institute any proceedings of any manner whatsoever without express permission from this Hon’ble Court.

¶126

The Parties agree that they shall equally share the educational expenses of their minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam and fully cooperate with each other in Master Aditya’s education. The Parties agree that the names of both parents shall be entered in Master Aditya’s school records.

¶127

The parties agree that they shall equally share all the major medical expenses of their minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam, if any. The Parties shall share all medical records of the child with each other and all medical treatment will be with the consent of both parents.

¶128

The Petitioner No.1 undertakes to provide the Petitioner No.2 with a copy of their minor child

¶129

¶130

Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam’s Aadhar/ unmasked e-Aadhar card.

¶131

The Petitioners agree that the meeting point for the custody exchange of Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam shall continue to be the TTD Temple, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru, and that no third parties from either side shall interfere in the custody handoff.

¶132

The Petitioners agree to celebrate the festivals of Ugadi, Krishna Janmashtami, Ganesh Chaturthi and Deepavali on alternate years with their child.

¶133

The Petitioners agree that on the occasion of the child’s birthday, their child shall be with the father from 8 pm on the eve of the birthday to 2 pm on the birthday and from 2 pm on the birthday to 8 am the following day with the mother, subject to these days being school holidays.

¶134

The Passport and other travel documents of the child shall be deposited before this Hon’ble Court and Petitioners’ foreign travel with their child shall be subject to the specific orders of this Hon’ble Court.

¶135

The Petitioner no.1 therefore agrees not to claim any money or maintenance for herself as a result of this mutual petition.

¶136

¶137

The Parties state that they do not have any documents pertaining to each other with them including any personal/private documents. Any such documents, papers which are retained by either party shall be null and void without having any consequences in the eyes of law.

¶138

In view of the aforesaid settlement reached between the parties, both have agreed not to make any claim hereafter against each other or their family members in respect of maintenance, residence rights, compensation, permanent alimony or any other claim whatsoever for themselves, family members or their minor child, either past, present or future and also in respect of movable and immovable properties of each other or their family members as well as all claims against each other’s family whatsoever.

¶139

That both the parties also undertake that they will not interfere in each other’s personal and professional life in future.

¶140

That all the disputes between both the parties arising out of their marriage, as well as the custody, visitation and maintenance of their minor child as well as claims against each other’s family members stand settled and satisfied after full and final settlement as stated supra.

¶141

¶142

That both the parties agree to withdraw all allegations against each other and their respective family members.

¶143

The Petitioners submit that there is no coercion, undue influence or force or fraud from anybody upon them to file the above petition and they are filing this petition voluntarily.

¶144

Wherefore, the Petitioner No.1 and the Petitioner No.2 pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant decree of divorce by means of mutual consent subject to the aforesaid conditions dissolving the marriage solemnized on 24.05.2002 at Meenakshi Kalyana Mantapa, Sri Gnanakshi Rajarajeshwari Kalyana Complex, Near Rajarajeshwari Temple, Mysore Road, Bangalore and cancel the certificate of registration duly registered before the Registrar of marriage at Basavanagudi, Bangalore vide document bearing Sl.No.169/2002-03 in volume no. XXVIII page no.204 dated 22.06.2002 on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate to impose in the interest of Justice and Equity.

¶145

¶146

SCHEDULE A

¶147

Cases to be withdrawn/ closed by Petitioner No.1 in accordance with law along with all or any other lis filed by her against the Petitioner No.2 and his family members whatsoever till date.

¶148

Sl.No.	Case Number	Parties Details
	C.C.No.19847/2012	Savitha Vs. Rajiv And Rajiv’s father
	M.F.A.No.1536/2015	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	Crl.R.P.No.635/2016	Savitha Vs. Rajiv and Rajiv’s father and mother
	W.P.No.38061/2016	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	W.P.No.39788/2016	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	C.C.C.No.991/2016	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	C.C.C.No.1381/2016	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	W.P.No.52594/2018	Savitha Vs. State, Rajiv and Rajiv’s father
	M.F.A.No.4749/2019	Savitha Vs. Rajiv
	Compliaint to Passport Autorities seeking impounding of passport, etc.	Savitha against Rajiv and his father.
	Contempt Petition (Provisional) No.3354/2020	Savitha Vs. Rajiv

¶149

SCHEDULE B

¶150

Cases to be withdrawn/closed by Petitioner no.2 in accordance with law along with all or

¶151

¶152

any other lis filed by him against the Petitioner No.1 and her family members whatsoever till date.

¶153

Sl.No.	Case Number	Parties Details
	O.S.No.1305/2013	Rajiv Vs. Sudha Seetharam
	C.C.No.13153/2013	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	Ex.P.No.47/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	M.F.A.No.137/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	W.P.No.11754/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	W.P.No.16832/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha and others
	C.C.C.No.1236/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	W.P.No.25233/2015	Rajiv Vs. State and Others
	P.C.R.No.7567/2015	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	Crl.P.No.1487/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	C.C.C.No.680/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	C.C.C.No.711/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	Cr.No.122/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	P.C.R.No.6873/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
	W.P.No.43448/2016	Rajiv Vs. Seetharamu and others
	W.P.No.4424/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha and others
	W.P.No.52651/2016	Rajiv Vs. Sudha Seetharama
	C.C.C.No.656/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha and school.

¶154

¶155

C.C.C.No.673/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha and school
C.C.C.No.810/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
C.C.C.No.1144/2016	Rajiv Vs. Police Inspector
M.F.A.No.6569/2016	Rajiv Vs. Savitha
SLP(c)No.26534/2019	Rajiv Vs. Sudha

¶156

Sd/Bengaluru PETITIONER No.1 DATED:27.08.2020

¶157

Sd/-

¶158

PETITIONER No.2

¶159

Sd/ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1

¶160

Sd/ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.2

¶161

VERIFICATION

¶162

We, Savitha Seetharam and Sei Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath that what is stated above are true and correct and to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.

¶163

Sd/-

¶164

PETITIONER No.1 PETITIONER No.2

¶165

BENGALURU DATED:27.08.2020.

¶166

¶167

The petitioners have also filed an application under Section 13B(2) of the Act seeking dispensation of statutory waiting period of six months as stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Act. The same is supported by a joint affidavit filed by the parties. We have perused the same.

¶168

Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that having regard to innumerable and protracted litigation between the parties and the fact that they have been separately residing since nine years ten months and there being no chance of parties residing together or reconciliation of their disputes, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMARDEEP SINGH Vs HARVEEN KAUR – (2017) 8 SCC 746 would squarely apply. Hence, they submitted that the application may be allowed.

¶169

Having perused the application filed under Section 13B(2) of the Act and bearing in mind the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMARDEEP SINGH Vs. HARVEEN KAUR – (2017) 8 SCC 746 , we think it

¶170

¶171

just and proper to allow the said application. The said application is accordingly allowed.

¶172

We have already extracted the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties which are filed in the form of a petition filed under Section 13B of the Act. On perusal of the same, we find that the said terms are lawful and that there is no impediment in law to accept the same. Consequently, we accept the terms of the settlement.

¶173

14. Clause 5 of the settlement reads as under:

¶174

“The Parties have agreed to withdraw the cases between them and their family members. The parties have not been able to reach any consensus ad-idem in relation to matters relating to child custody and visitation of their minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam and consequently, they have agreed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order in relation to the same, which shall be part of this settlement”.

¶175

In the circumstances, while we reserve our orders

¶176

to be passed in terms of Clause 5 of the Petition, we conclude on the petition filed under Section 13B(1) of the Act in

¶177

¶178

light of the terms of settlement and facts of the case, which we find, are lawful, and there is no legal impediment to concur with the same. The parties before us have been living separately for a period of nine years ten months and they have not been able to live together nor reconcile their differences and they have mutually agreed that their marriage could be dissolved. In the circumstances, the marriage between the parties solemnized on 24.05.2002 at Bengaluru is dissolved by mutual consent in terms of Section 13B(1) of the Act. The Petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the registration of marriage would have no effect and would cease to have any effect.

¶179

In the circumstances, these cases stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, the order pursuant to Clause 5 of the settlement which is pertinent to MFA.No.1536/2015 and MFA.No.137/2015 regarding custody and visitation rights is reserved and shall be pronounced shortly and shall be read as a part and parcel of this order.

¶180

¶181

We place on record our deep appreciation for the untiring efforts of the respective Advocates for the parties and their sincere endeavour in ensuring a quietus to these batch of cases.

¶182

Sd/JUDGE

¶183

Sd/JUDGE

¶184

PKS

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam v. Smt. Savitha Seetharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam v. Smt. Savitha Seetharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharan Desai M Arch Usa Vs the Council of Architecture (Coa)

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri B N Nagaraja

Smt. Kalpana Keshav Gokhal @ Kusum Rajaram Karve Vs Gowree v. Karve

Sri Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam Vs Smt Savitha Seetharam

Smt. Savitha Seetharam Vs Sri Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam

Smt Srilatha P Vs Sri G Vadiraj