Allowed

Smt Geetha G Rao v. Sri Naveen Nagaraja

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021MFA/3025/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two matrimonial appeals filed by the wife against a divorce decree and a rejected restitution petition. The court accepted a settlement memorandum under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC where the husband agreed to pay Rs. 55 lakh as permanent alimony, and the appellant withdrew her appeals. The divorce decree was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were permitted to be withdrawn; the divorce decree was confirmed; the dismissal of the restitution petition was affirmed.

Smt Geetha G Rao Vs Sri Naveen Nagaraja — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

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

¶8

M.F.A. No.3025/2017 (MC) C/W

¶9

M.F.A.No.3372/2017 (FC)

¶10

IN M.F.A. No.3025/2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. GEETHA G. RAO W/O. NAVEEN NAGARAJA, D/O. N. GOVINDA GAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/9, H.I.G., 1^ST 'A' MAIN, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶13

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.15, 1^ST MAIN, MEENAKSHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079. ... APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI NAVEEN NAGARAJA S/O. K. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.97, 3^RD CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 064. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.16, 1^ST 'A' CROSS ROAD, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA TEMPLE ROAD,

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶19

... RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2017 PASSED ON M.C. NO.2739/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(1)(d) OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT.

¶22

IN M.F.A.No.3372/2017

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. GEETHA G. RAO W/O. NAVEEN NAGARAJA, D/O. N. GOVINDA GAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS , R/AT NO.6/9, H.I.G., 1^ST 'A' MAIN, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560079

¶25

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 15, 1^ST MAIN, MEENAKSHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079. ... APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI NAVEEN NAGARAJA S/O. K. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.97, 3^RD CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 064 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.16, 1^ST 'A' CROSS ROAD, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA TEMPLE ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK,

¶29

... RESPONDENT

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶32

(BY SRI S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.1702/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(1)(d) OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT.

¶34

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Though these appeals are listed for orders in order to consider I.A.No.1/2018, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the parties have negotiated a settlement and the terms of the settlement have been incorporated in the memorandum of settlement filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC" for short) and hence, the appeals may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶37

These appeals are filed by the wife. MFA.No.3025/2017 is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 13/03/2017, passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in

¶38

-: 4 :-

¶39

M.C.No.2739/2007 filed under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience). By the said judgment, the petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was allowed. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this appeal. MFA.No.3372/2015 is filed by the wife assailing the dismissal of her petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in M.C.No.1702/2015. The said petition was filed seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition, the wife has preferred this appeal. Since these two appeals arise out of common judgment and decree, they have been connected together. As already noted, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that these appeals could be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶40

The parties are present before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel.

¶41

-: 5 :-

¶42

When queried by the Court, they stated that

¶43

they have, indeed, arrived at a settlement. The appellant/wife stated that she would not press her appeals and the common judgment and decree passed by the Family Court may be confirmed subject to the respondent/husband paying permanent alimony of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only) to her in full and final settlement of all her claims. The respondent/husband submitted that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only) towards full and final settlement of the claim of permanent alimony by the appellant/wife and the same shall be paid by way of demand draft bearing No.875682, dated 06/03/2021, drawn on State Bank of India, SPL PBB St. Marks Road Branch, Bengaluru - 560 001, favouring the appellant/wife.

¶44

In the circumstances, the memorandum of settlement filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, has been taken on record. It is noted that the same is signed by the respective parties and their counsel. The same reads as under:

¶45

-: 6 :-

¶46

" MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY THE PARTIES UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 CPC

¶47

The parties above named beg to submit as follows:

¶48

The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband, their marriage was solemnized on 08/11/2004 at Bangalore under the provision of Special Marriage Act; there were certain differences between the parties resulting to separation and the respondent filing M.C.No.2739/07 under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act for divorce.

¶49

The VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, by its order dated 13/03/2017 was pleased to grant the decree of divorce. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, the above appeal has been preferred by the wife/appellant.

¶50

The relatives and elders of the parties have had mutual discussion and in the course of their discussion the parties have arrived at settlement, the terms and conditions of which are reduced in to writing as below:

¶51

i) The parties confirm that they are married to each other on 08/11/2004 at Bangalore under the provision of Special Marriage Act and that there are no issues in the wedlock.

¶52

ii) The parties are living separately from each other since the year 2007 itself.

¶53

iii) The respondent has agreed to pay permanent alimony to the appellant and accordingly the

¶54

-: 7 :-

¶55

appellant has agreed to receive the said amount by way of permanent alimony in full and final settlement of all claims.

¶56

iv) Accordingly, the respondent has agreed to pay Rs.55,00,000.00 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs only) by way of demand draft and in pursuance thereof, the respondent has tendered Rs.55,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs only) vide Demand Draft No.875682 dated 06/03/2021 drawn on State Bank of India, SPL PBB St.Marks Road Branch, Bangalore-1 favouring the appellant. The appellant acknowledges the receipt of the said Demand Draft.

¶57

v) The parties further under take and confirm that they will not interfere in the personal life of each other hereafter and that they are free to live their independent life without any intervention by the other parties.

¶58

vi) In terms of the above, the parties do not have any claim against each other and the appellant therefore does not press the above appeal.

¶59

vii) In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the parties do not press the connected appeal filed i.e. MFA No.3372 of 2017 (MC) filed by the appellant.

¶60

Bangalore, Dated: 10^th March 2021

¶61

-: 8 :-

¶62

Sd/Sd/Advocate for Respondent Respondent"

¶63

It is noted that the respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only) towards full and final settlement of the claim for permanent alimony of the appellant/wife as per the details referred to above. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband has handed over the said demand draft to learned counsel for the appellant/wife, who has in turn handed over the same to the appellant/wife, who has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶64

We have perused the terms of the settlement

¶65

arrived at between the parties and we find the same to be lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same and hence, being satisfied with the terms of the settlement, we accept the same.

¶66

In the circumstances, the appeals filed by the

¶67

appellant/wife are permitted to be withdrawn.

¶68

The judgment and decree of the Family Court dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on

¶69

-: 9 :-

¶70

08/11/2004 in Bengaluru which has been dissolved is confirmed.

¶71

Further, the dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant/wife by the Family Court is also affirmed.

¶72

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶73

Registry to draw up a decree accordingly.

¶74

In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2018 in

¶75

MFA.No.3025/2017 stands disposed.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

Smt Geetha G Rao v. Sri Naveen Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha G Rao v. Sri Naveen Nagaraja

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

Sri a M Gangappa Since Deceased Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Budunuru Ramachandra Vs the Chief Secretary

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) Vs Sri. Rangaiah. R

M/S Komtech Plastic Technologies Vs Mr. G. Raju

Smt Geetha G Rao Vs Sri Naveen Nagaraja

Smt Jenifer Reshma Vs Mr Sachin Johnson Kunder