Disposed

Sri Prashanth S v. Smt Pooja

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024MFA/3534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and wife settled their contested divorce appeal during pendency and jointly filed a Section 13B mutual-consent divorce petition. The High Court waived the six-month cooling period, granted the decree of divorce dissolving the 2019 marriage, and modified the Family Court judgment accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Six-month cooling period waived; divorce granted by mutual consent; Family Court judgment and decree modified; registry to draw modified decree.

Sri Prashanth S Vs Smt Pooja — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34447-DB MFA No. 3534 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3534 OF 2024 (FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PRASHANTH S S/O SHIVAMURTHY N, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O 1ST MAIN, 9TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577601.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MARUTHI G B.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT POOJA W/O PRASHANTH S, D/O VIJAYAKUMAR B, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NEAR GOWRISHANKARA TEMPLE, GOWRISHANKARA NAGARA, RANEBENNURU, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581115.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 232/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:34447-DB MFA No. 3534 of 2024

¶21

SECTION 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) AND (iii) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2024 passed in MC No.232/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere, by which the appellant’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘1955 Act’), is dismissed.

¶28

Appellant - Sri Prashanath along with his counsel Sri Martuhi G.B, as well as respondent - Smt Pooja along with her counsel Sri Ramakrishna N, are present before the Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that during the pendency of the appeal, with the intervention of the elders, the appellant and respondent have

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34447-DB MFA No. 3534 of 2024

¶31

arrived at settlement and they have decided to dissolve their marriage dated 29.11.2019 by filing petition under Section 13B of the 1955 Act. Accordingly, to-day petition under Section 13B of the 1955 Act is filed and an application under Section 13B(2) of the 1955 Act is also filed to waive the statutory cooling period of 6 months.

¶32

Paragraph 5 of Section 13B petition reads as

¶33

follows:

¶34

“5. It is further submitted that now both the parties came to conclusion that it is not possible to reunion in future, there is no fruit full result in precipitating above matter. Accordingly, they are intends to end the dispute with the settlement. As under

¶35

A. Both the parties agreed themselves to dissolve the marriage dated 29.11.2019 solemnized at Sri Mruthyunjaya Sabha Bhavana, Mruthyunjaya Nagara, PB Road, Ranebennuru, Haveri District.

¶36

B. Both the parties declares that there is no issued from the wed lock. C. Both the parties declares that the articles what are to be exchanged already exchanged themselves before the elder of the both the family.

¶37

D. The respondent declares that there is no dues from the appellant and there is no claim of maintenance from the appellant.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:34447-DB MFA No. 3534 of 2024

¶40

E. Both the parties declares that all the allegations made against the each other are withdrawn and there is no allegation against each other.

¶41

F. Both the parties have mutually agreed that they have not any future claim against each other and hereby given up all their respective right and claim against each other and both are agreed to live their own freely and independently.”

¶42

Appellant and respondent have agreed to dissolve

¶43

their marriage by mutual consent. It is also agreed that they have no claim whatsoever against each of them.

¶44

Application under Section 13B(2) of 1955 Act is filed to waive the statutory cooling period of 6 months. It is seen that the appellant and respondent are litigating since 2021. Taking note of the said fact and as the parties have come forward to give quietus to the litigation, we deem it appropriate to allow the said application and waive 6 months statutory cooling period.

¶45

In the light of the above, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The application under Section 13B(2) of the

¶48

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed and the

¶49

statutory cooling period of 6 months is waived;

¶50

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34447-DB MFA No. 3534 of 2024

¶51

ii) The petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

¶52

Marriage Act, 1955, is allowed;

¶53

iii) The marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on 29.11.2019 is dissolved by mutual consent. Accordingly, decree of divorce is granted;

¶54

iv) The judgment and decree of the Family Court is modified to the above extent;

¶55

v) Registry to draw the modified decree

¶56

accordingly.

¶57

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41

Sri Prashanth S v. Smt Pooja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashanth S v. Smt Pooja

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

Smt a R Bhanumathi Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt.G.Nagarathnamma

H v Lingannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Chikkamunishamappa Vs Smt Muniyamma

Azeez Mohammed Vs Smt R Navaneetham

Mr M Padmanabha Rao Vs Mr S Suresh Shet