Disposed

Sri Abhishek Hegde a v. Smt Megha Rani M

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024MFA/913/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and wife filed cross-appeals against conflicting Family Court decrees on their mutual divorce petitions. They settled through a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, agreeing to divorce with the wife foregoing alimony. The court dissolved the marriage and confirmed the wife's divorce decree.

What did the court decide?

Marriage dissolved by mutual compromise; respondent's Section 13(1)(i-a) decree confirmed; Family Court judgment modified in terms of the compromise petition.

Sri Abhishek Hegde a Vs Smt Megha Rani M — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2021 (FC)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 826 OF 2021

¶12

IN MFA No. 913/2021

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI ABHISHEK HEGDE A S/O ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ADVOCATE R/A GOPALPURA VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUKA-570 008.

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. SUNIL SHRISHAIL CHOUDHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. MEGHA RANI M W/O A. ABHISHEK HEGDE D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A #304, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD VARAKODU VILLAGE & POST,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶21

VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUKA-570 010.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. RAGHU H.R AND SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED. 15.12.2020, PASSED IN MC.NO.380/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.13(1) (ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 826/2021

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI ABHISHEK HEGDE A S/O ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ADVOCATE R/A GOPALPURA VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUKA-57 0008.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. SUNIL SHRISHAIL CHOUDHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SMT. MEGHA RANI M W/O A. ABHISHEK HEGDE D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A #304, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD VARAKODU VILLAGE & POST VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUKA-570 010

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. RAGHU H.R AND SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶35

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 121/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶37

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶41

These appeals are preferred by the appellant namely Sri Abhishek challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in M.C.No.380/2019 clubbed with M.C.No.121/2020 and C.Mis.No.470/2019 and dated 15.12.2020 urging the various grounds.

¶42

The proceeding in M.C.No.380/2019 has been filed by the appellant herein for decree of divorce under 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act and it came to be dismissed on 15.12.2020.

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶44

The proceeding in M.C.No.121/2020 has been

¶45

filed by the respondent herein for decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act and it came to be allowed with cost.

¶46

The petition in C.Mis.No.470/2019 has been filed by the respondent against the appellant herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and it came to be dismissed.

¶47

Learned counsel, Sri Sunil Shrishail Choudhari,

¶48

for the appellant is present before the Court physically in both the appeal matters.

¶49

Learned counsel, Sri N.Kumar for the respondent, is on record but represented by learned counsel, Sri Raghu H.R., is present before the Court physically and submits that Sri. N.Kumar, learned counsel on record in these matters intends to issue NOC to the respondent-Smt. Megharani M. This submission is taken on record.

¶50

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶51

7. Consequently, there is requirement of issuance

¶52

of Court notice to the respondent but the said respondent, who is present before the Court in these matters, is ready to take the notice in these matters. Consequently, she is directed to file a memo to that effect. Subsequently, the respondent has filed a memo. Memo is taken on record.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent have filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. It is stated in the petition that appellant and respondent, on considering their long pending litigations and no chance of reunion to lead their marital life, have agreed to get dissolved their marital life on the following terms and conditions:

¶54

"1) It is submitted that, petitioner and respondent are Husband and wife.

¶55

2) It is submitted that, after much deliberation, the Petitioner & respondent have resolved their dispute with the intervention of the elders, family members, wellwishers of both the family and decided to put an end to their disputes once for all and have arrived at settlement. Hence this compromise petition.

¶56

3) It is submitted that both the parties agreed for passing of decree of divorce on account of compromise or settlement.

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶58

4) It is submitted that, the Respondent wife with free will and without any coercion, misrepresentation has decided to forego her claim of Permanent Alimony and will not claim any Alimony from petitioner husband. Accordingly the Respondent request this Hon'ble Court for setting aside the order of Permanent Alimony in MFA No. 826/2021 & MFA No. 913/2021.

¶59

5) It is submitted that, the respondent wife will withdraw the Execution Petition, Ex No.24/2021 pending before the Hon'ble II Additional Principal Judge Family Court at Mysuru.

¶60

6) It is submitted that the Respondent wife will file an affidavit in Criminal Petition No 7103/2022 (482) for quashing of the FIR against the Petitioner and his Family Members on account of the settlement.

¶61

7) It is submitted that, the petitioner has filed the petition against the respondent in P.C.R. No. 15/2023 and C.C. No 1834/2004 and has agreed to withdraw the same before the Hon'ble II J.M.F.C. Court at Mysuru.

¶62

8) The Petitioner and the Respondent withdraw their respective allegations made against each other and shall not make any allegations against each other in future as well.

¶63

9) It is submitted that, this compromise petition is filed with free will and consent. There is no coercion or threat from anybody. There is no collusion between the parties. They have agreed not to file any other complaint, suit and Petition before any other Court for same relief in future.

¶64

10) It is submitted that, both the Petitioner and Respondent have no claims either of past, present or future upon each other's movable and immovable properties and the Respondent has relinquished her present and future alimony of maintenance against the appellant.

¶65

11) It is submitted that, both the Petitioner and Respondent have agreed not to interfere with each other's personal, social and economical life and are free to marry any other person of their choice.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶68

12) It is submitted that, both the parties shall adhere to and abide by the conditions mentioned herein above.

¶69

13) It is submitted that, the Petitioner and Respondent have jointly signed this Compromise Petition with their own freewill without any force, threat, coercion and undue influence."

¶70

9. The appellant, namely, Sri Abhishek Hegde A.,

¶71

and the respondent, namely, Smt. Megha Rani M., are present before the Court physically. Both the parties submit that this settlement is arrived at by their mutual consent, voluntarily, from their free will and volition, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence whatsoever. Hence, they submit that these appeals may

¶72

be disposed of by dissolving the marriage held on 20.04.2018 at Nithyananda Kalyana Mantapa, Mysuru.

¶73

The compromise petition is taken on record. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of. The judgment and decree rendered by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in M.C.No.380/2019 clubbed with M.C.No.121/2020 and C.Mis.No.470/2019 dated 15.12.2020 are hereby modified. In terms of the

¶74

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46554-DB MFA No. 913 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2021

¶75

compromise petition, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby confirmed and the marriage performed with the appellant is hereby dissolved. Decree shall be drawn accordingly, in terms of the compromise petition.

¶76

In view of disposal of the appeals in terms of the compromise petition, the interlocutory application, if any, is pending for consideration and the same shall stand disposed of.

¶77

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

¶78

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶79

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri Abhishek Hegde a v. Smt Megha Rani M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abhishek Hegde a v. Smt Megha Rani M

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. Hifza Banu Vs Sri. N. K. Fareed

Smt. Shantha Vs Sri T Suresh

R Rangaswamy Vs Mr Sippegowda

Sri Mohan S Vs Smt Hema M S

Sri Mohan Ramachandra Vs Smt. Kalavathi

Dr S Bisalaiah Vs Shri Shivayogi C. Kalasad