Disposed¶37

Smt. Maria Arpita B v. Sri Lawrence Prakash

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2025MFA/3220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No. 3220 of 2024; Indian Divorce Act S.55 appeal; dissolution of marriage affirmed on mutual settlement terms reported in M.C.No.2285/2021; impugned decree dated 02.08.2023 in M.C.No.30/2022 under S.10(ix)(x) Indian Divorce Act; earlier petition under Section 32 Indian Divorce Act 1869; Memorandum of Settlement; jewellery and alimony handed over; marriage irretrievably broken down; allegations withdrawn; decree to be drawn by Registry; no costs; Bench: B M Shyam Prasad and G Basavaraja; decided 20.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of affirming the dissolution of marriage on the mutually agreed settlement terms reported in M.C.No.2285/2021; Registry called upon to draw the decree accordingly; no costs. ¶37

Smt. Maria Arpita B Vs Sri Lawrence Prakash — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21553-DB MFA No. 3220 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3220 OF 2024

¶10

(IDA)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. MARIA ARPITA B W/O LAWRENCE PRAKASH D/O BALRAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, LALBAGH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU,

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI LAWRENCE PRAKASH S/O JOSEPH A AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT JAYANAGAR VILLAGE, SINGAPURA POST, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN 573 211

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. SUSAI RAJ A., ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21553-DB MFA No. 3220 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.55 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.02.08.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.10(ix) (x) OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶27

The appellant’s marriage to the respondent stands dissolved by the Order and Decree dated 02.08.2023 in M.C.No.30/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura. The appellant and the respondent are present, and they are identified by their learned counsels. The copies of the Memorandum of Settlement and the order dated 23.04.2025 in the proceedings in M.C.No.2285/2021 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru are placed on record.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21553-DB MFA No. 3220 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The learned counsels for the parties, as affirmed

¶31

by the parties, state that the appellant had filed her petition for divorce under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 in M.C.No.2285/2021 and in such proceedings, they have agreed, amongst others, that there shall be dissolution of marriage as is granted by the Family Court in the present proceedings in M.C.No.30/2022 but on the terms of settlement. As regards the terms of settlement, the learned counsels and the parties submit that the respondent has handed over both jewelry and the amount of alimony in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement.

¶32

It emerges from the subsequent turn of events that the parties have indeed agreed for dissolution of marriage as is granted in the impugned Order and Decree on mutually accepted terms but not for reasons assigned therein. Thus, the parties have agreed to withdraw all allegations and accept that the marriage is irretrievably broken down. This Court is

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21553-DB MFA No. 3220 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

of the considered view that the appeal must therefore stand disposed of affirming dissolution of marriage as is granted by the Family Court in the impugned Order and Decree dated 02.08.2023 but on terms

¶36

that are mutually agreed and reported in M.C.No.2285/2021.

¶37

The appeal stands disposed of calling upon the Registry to draw decree accordingly. There shall be no costs.

¶38

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶39

SD/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶40

Smt. Maria Arpita B v. Sri Lawrence Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maria Arpita B v. Sri Lawrence Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shanthala P Anchan

State of Karnataka Vs Dinesha

Smt. K S Bhargavi Vs Nagaraj K R

Shyla H K Vs Prashanth T R

Shanthi Kumari P Vs Mr Jeevandas Adyanthaya

The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmipathi