Disposed

Sri Puttaraju v. Smt. S. Manjula

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2021MFA/9600/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two mutual first appeals by substituting the impugned trial court judgment with a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The court accepted a settlement including Rs.4 lakhs maintenance and dispensed with the six-month mandatory waiting period citing Amardeep Singh.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce by mutual consent granted with dispensation of six-month waiting period, respondent wife entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/- permanent alimony.

Sri Puttaraju Vs Smt. S. Manjula — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9600 OF 2013 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5718 OF 2014 (FC)

¶9

MFA NO.9600 OF 2013

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.PUTTARAJU SON OF LATE PAPANNACHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGENAHALLI MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI:HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.S.MANJULA DAUGHTER OF SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4, 4^TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096. ...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI:K.J.JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: G.PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶15

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11/09/2013 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2250 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶17

MFA NO.5718/2014

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

SMT.S.MANJULA WIFE OF PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4, 4^TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096. ...APPELLANT

¶20

(BY SRI:K.J.JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: G.PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI.PUTTARAJU SON OF PAPANNACHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGENAHALLI MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.

¶23

... RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI:HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11/09/2013 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2164 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING

¶26

¶27

THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.

¶28

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

These appeals arise out of common judgment dated 11/09/2013 passed in M.C.No.2164 of 2004 connected with M.C.No.2250 of 2005 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for the sake of brevity). The appellant in MFA No.9600 of 2013 is the husband, while MFA No.5718 of 2014 is filed by the wife, both being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

¶31

The husband had preferred M.C.No.2250 of 2005 under Section 13(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) seeking dissolution of marriage with the wife solemnized on 09/11/1997 at Saraswathi Samudaya Bhavan, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, while the wife had filed her petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking

¶32

¶33

restitution of conjugal rights. By the impugned common judgment, both the petitions have been dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, these two appeals.

¶34

During the pendancy of these appeals, the parties have negotiated a settlement and today, learned counsel for the respective parties, in the presence of the parties, have filed the petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent supported by a joint affidavit and an application under Section 13-B(2) of the Act seeking dispensation of the period of six months stipulated thereon, which is also supported by the joint affidavit.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the terms have been set out in the petition and on the basis of the same, this Court may grant dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by also allowing the application filed by them under Section 13-B(2) of the Act on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶36

¶37

Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur [(2017) 8 SCC

¶38

746] . Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the monetary settlement arrived at between the parties is stipulated in paragraph 4 of the petition and the parties would abide by the same. Hence, these appeals may be disposed of accordingly.

¶39

The parties are before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. When queried by this Court, they stated that they have, indeed, decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of mutual consent. That after due deliberation, they have arrived at such a mutually acceptable decision. There is no coercion or undue influence from any side and their decision to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been taken on their own free volition. They further stated that they would abide by the terms of the settlement.

¶40

The petition filed by the parties under Section 13-B(1) of the Act is taken on record. It is noted that it is

¶41

¶42

signed by the parties and their respective counsel. It is supported by a joint affidavit.

¶43

The terms of the petition filed under Section 13-B(1) of the Act, read as under:

¶44

“Petition Under Section 13-B of the

¶45

Hindu Marriage Act:

¶46

The petitioner and respondent submit and state as follows:

¶47

1. The appellant and respondent got married on 09.11.1997 as per the Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies at Samudaya Bhavan, Nandini Layout at Bengaluru. Out of the said wedlock, they begot a son on 01.12.1998, who has attained majority.

¶48

2. The appellant and respondent are living separately since, 1998, due to differences between them. The respondent/wife had filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.2164/2004 on the file of the 1^st Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. The appellant/husband had filed

¶49

¶50

M.C.No.2250/2005 seeking divorce against the wife on the file of the 1^st Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. Both the petitions came to be dismissed by the Judgment & order dated 11.09.2013. The appellant/husband preferred Appeal in MFA No.9600/2013 and the respondent/wife preferred Appeal in MFA No.5718/2014, against the respective orders before this Hon’ble Court which appeals are pending consideration.

¶51

3. The appellant and the respondent state that inspite of their best efforts, they are unable to reconcile their differences and having come to the conclusion that the marriage between them has been broken down irretrievably, have decided to settle all their disputes and go for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

¶52

4. In lieu of their final settlement, the appellant/husband has already agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent/wife towards full and final settlement permanent alimony/maintenance in the Crl. Pet

¶53

¶54

No.8583/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as follows:

¶55

a) Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner No.1 by way of Demand Draft bearing No.769631 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Madhugiri, dated 22.06.2018, in the name of the respondent/wife. The receipt of the same is acknowledged by the respondent/wife.

¶56

b) Remaining amount of Rs.75,000/(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only), the appellant has deposited the same before the Hon’ble Court in Crl.Pet.No.8583/2015 and the appellant has no objection for respondent to withdraw the said amount to respondent, subject to withdrawal of all cases/ proceedings as agreed and signed in the compromise petition in Crl.Pet.No.8583/2015.

¶57

5. That both parties have no claims of whatsoever nature either for alimony or maintenance, past, present or future against each other. Both the parties have exchanged

¶58

¶59

all their belongings from each other and withdraw allegations made against each other.

¶60

6. That both the parties undertake that they will and shall not interfere with the lives of each other and any of their relatives in future.

¶61

7. That both parties herein agree to withdraw all the allegations made against each other in all the proceedings between them and others and shall not make use of said allegations made against each other in any other court, authority or proceedings.

¶62

8. Both the appellant and respondent herein voluntarily and out of their free will hereby mutually agree and consent each other for getting the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

¶63

Wherefore the appellant and respondent prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a Decree of Divorce declaring the marriage between the appellant and respondent, solemnized on 09.11.1997 as per

¶64

¶65

the Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies at Samudaya Bhavan, Nandini Layout at Bengaluru, is dissolved and grant such other and further relief under the circumstances as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, on the facts of the case.

¶66

Date: 27.01.2021 Bengaluru

¶67

Sd/- Sd/Advocate for Appellant Appellant

¶68

Sd/- Sd/Advocate for respondent Respondent”

¶69

The parties have filed an application under

¶70

Section 13-B(2) of the Act seeking dispensation of the period of six months stipulated thereon for grant of a decree of divorce forthwith.

¶71

We have perused the said application which is supported by the joint affidavit of the parties. It is noted that the parties were married on 09/11/1997. They filed their respective petition before the Trial Court in the year

¶72

¶73

2004-05 and since then, the parties are living separately and in fact it is stated that they are living separately since December, 1998. It is further stated that there is no possibility of reconciliation and cohabitation between the parties. In the circumstances, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the Amardeep Singh (supra) , we allow the application filed under Section 13-B(2) of the Act.

¶74

We have perused the terms of the settlement and we find that they are lawful and there is no legal impediment in accepting the same. The said terms are acceptable to this Court.

¶75

Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 09/11/2017 at Saraswathi Samudaya Bhavan, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

¶76

The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is substituted by this judgment.

¶77

¶78

The respondent-wife is entitled to permanent alimony

¶79

of Rs.4,00,000/- as stipulated above.

¶80

The appeals are disposed in the aforesaid terms.

¶81

Registry to draw up a decree accordingly.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

*bgn/-

Sri Puttaraju v. Smt. S. Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttaraju v. Smt. S. Manjula

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

Smt Savithramma Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kullappa Vs the State of Karnatak

Sri. Krishna Murthy Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Saroja Vs Sri B S Venugopala

Union of India Vs Shri G S Ravindra