Smt. Sangeetha. H Vs Sri. Yogananda. H

SMT. SANGEETHA. H, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O SRI. HASTIMAL, R/AT NO. 3671/16, 2^nd FLOOR, 5^th CROSS, 1^st MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. YOGANANDA. H, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA M, NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3671/16, 2^nd FLOOR, 5^th CROSS, 1^st MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 021,

¶16

PREVIOUS ADDRESS, NO. 22, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, WOC ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 010.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI M A., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2020 PASSED IN MC NO.2655/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:20050-DB MFA No. 4201/2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶25

and

¶26

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶29

Vakalath of Sri.Ganapathi for the respondent is taken on

¶30

record.

¶31

Sri.Ranjan Kumar K., learned counsel appears for appellant. Sri. Ganapathi M.A., learned counsel appears for the respondent. Smt.Sangeetha H., the appellant and Sri.Yogananda H., the respondent are present. The parties are duly identified by their respective advocates.

¶32

Parties submit the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶33

Heard the parties on the compromise petition. Parties admit voluntary execution of compromise petition. The terms of the same read as follows;

¶34

“COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ

¶35

WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

¶36

The Appellant and Respondent beg to submit as follows:-

¶37

The appellant has filed the above appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2020 in

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:20050-DB MFA No. 4201/2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

M. C. No. 2655 of 2014 Passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, family Court, Bengaluru, wherein the Court has allowed the petition filed by the Respondent under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶42

It is submitted that Subsequent to the Judgement, we reconciled and started residing together as husband and wife from September 2020. Despite both of us living together by resolving our differences as husband and wife since from September 2020 i.e for more than 4 and 1/2 years, our relationship status is not that of husband and wife in the eyes of law. Hence we wanted to restore the legal status for our relationship and continue our marriage status from the date 27-11-2005 which was our marriage date. Hence the impugned Judgment & Decree is liable to be set aside.

¶43

Both parties with their own free volition have come forward to settle the above matter amicably without any pressure threat or undue influence from any of the parties. There is no claim of whatsoever nature against each other by either of the parties.

¶44

Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to set aside Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2020 in M. C. No. 2655 of 2014 Passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, family Court, Bengaluru in terms of this compromise petition filed today before this Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:20050-DB MFA No. 4201/2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Both parties admit that they have reconciled and

¶49

since 4-5 years they are living together cordially and they seek reversal of the impugned decree of divorce.

¶50

The records show that the appellant had not lead her evidence before the Trial Court. The respondent counsel has not cross examined PW1, he insisted for disposal of I.A.No.4 for interim maintenance.

¶51

The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the respondent husband during Covid period and wife did not turn up and has not lead her evidence. The impugned judgment also shows that the wife's application for interim maintenance was pending and the same was not considered. The wife's application to recall and reopen the case was also rejected. As admitted by the parties, since 4-5 years they are living cordially. Therefore, it is fit case to record compromise and allow the appeal. Hence the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Accordingly appeal is allowed .

¶54

The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.2020 in M.C.No.2655/2014 passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶55