Sri Pavan Kumar Reddy Vs Smt Sindhura Rajagopal

SRI PAVAN KUMAR REDDY S/O MR. HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.23, NO.1248 SUNNYVALE SARATOGA ROAD SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087(USA) REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SMT. SASIKALA HANUMANTHA REDDY W/O HANUMANTHA REDDY R/AT 414, I FLOOR 11^TH A CROSS I PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078

¶12

(BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

SMT SINDHURA RAJAGOPAL W/O PAVAN KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO.153, 1^ST MAIN KANAKA LAYOUT, BSK 2^ND STAGE PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.27, 1^ST CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR NAGARBHAVI 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE – 560 072 …RESPONDENT

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:6048-DB MFA No.4890/2022

¶18

(BY SRI.SHASHI KUMAR G V, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2022 PASSED IN MC NO.1997/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

Respondent, Power of Attorney Holder of the appellant and both Counsel are present.

¶25

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

¶26

Heard the parties on the compromise petition. Parties admit voluntary execution of compromise petition and the terms of the same which reads as follows:

¶27

COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

¶28

The marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu Customs and Rituals at AGN Kalyan Mantap, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore on 03.02.2016.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:6048-DB MFA No.4890/2022

¶31

Due to incompatibility, respondent filed M.C.No.1997 of 2018 before the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 seeking dissolution of the marriage. After trial, the Family Court passed an order dated 13.04.2022, dissolving the marriage by granting decree of divorce and further directed the Appellant to pay a sum of one lakh US Dollars to the respondent, towards permanent alimony.

¶32

Aggrieved by that portion of the order of the Family Court directing payment of permanent alimony of US dollars one lakh, the appellant has filed the above appeal, on various grounds.

¶33

During the pendency of the above appeal, at the intervention of friends and well-wishers, the appellant and the respondent have settled their disputes as per the terms of this compromise petition set out hereunder:

¶34

I. The Appellant has this day paid to the respondent a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by Demand Draft bearing No.487350 dated 10.02.2025 drawn on HDFC Bank, favoring the respondent (R.Sindhura) as permanent alimony.

¶35

II. The Respondent has unconditionally accepted the said amount of Rs.26,50,000/(Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in full and final settlement of all her claims against the respondent including permanent alimony. She further affirms and confirms that she does not have any claim of whatsoever nature against the appellant.

¶36

III. Parties affirm that both of them do not have any other claims of whatsoever nature against each other.

¶37

This memorandum of compromise is entered into by the parties on their own free will and volition

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6048-DB MFA No.4890/2022

¶39

and without any collusion or compulsion from any quarter.

¶40

Respondent admits receipt of Demand Draft for

¶41

Rs.26,50,000/- as stated in para 4 of the compromise petition in full and final settlement of her claim.

¶42

By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of present respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permanent alimony of One Lakh US dollars. Appellant has questioned decree only so far it relates to permanent alimony. Under the compromise petition, parties have agreed for confirmation of divorce decree and modification only with regard to permanent alimony.

¶43

Satisfied that the compromise is voluntary one and admissible in law. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the compromise petition. Hence the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The appeal is allowed.

¶46

The impugned judgment and decree in M.C.No.1997/2018 so far it relates to permanent alimony is modified as follows:

¶47