Partly allowed¶46

Smt. Gayathri Kumari Mishra v. Sri. Rajankumar Mishra

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2025MFA/7015/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: mutual settlement disposal of matrimonial appeal; dissolution of marriage decree confirmed; Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b), Section 28; Family Court Act 1961 Section 19(1); Family Court Bengaluru M.C.No.1283/2014; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 proceedings Crl.Misc.No.67/2018; Memorandum of Settlement; withdrawal of MFA No.7015/2023 and W.P.No.10370/2023; waiver of claims over movable and immovable properties; Pay Order dated 08.04.2021 Rs.11,00,000; no objection to divorce; VI Additional Principal Judge Family Court Bengaluru; High Court of Karnataka 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed-in-part confirming the decree of dissolution dated 01.08.2023 on the mutually agreed settlement terms; office directed to draw the decree accordingly. ¶46

Smt. Gayathri Kumari Mishra Vs Sri. Rajankumar Mishra — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21687-DB MFA No. 7015 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7015 OF 2023 (FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GAYATHRI KUMARI MISHRA WIFE OF RAJANKUMAR MISHRA AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.14 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011. ALSO AT R/AT C/O KARNATAKA HINDI PRACHAR SAMITHI NO 7, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, NEAR ASHOKA PILLAR BENGALURU 560011.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA K V.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. RAJANKUMAR MISHRA SON FO SRI SHRIKANT MISHRA AGED 45 YEARS R/AT NO 19, 3^RD CROSS GUNDAPPA BLOCK, J C NAGAR BENGALURU 560006

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. KAPIL DEV C ULLAL.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:21687-DB MFA No. 7015 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 1283/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a) AND (i-b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

The appellant, who is aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage to the respondent in M.C.No.1283/2014 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Family Court '] by the impugned order and decree dated 01.08.2023, has filed this appeal. It is seen from the records that there are proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.67/2018 between the appellant and the respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short,

¶27

'the Act' ].

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21687-DB MFA No. 7015 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent place on record the respective memos. The learned counsel for the appellant, along with the memo filed by him, has filed a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement signed and accepted by the appellant and the respondent in the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.67/2018. The parties have agreed as under:

¶31

"5. It is understood between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other shall be close/quash/withdraw in view of this agreement.

¶32

a) The 1^st petitioner has agreed to withdraw MFA No.7015/2023 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and has no objection for granting of divorce.

¶33

b) The 1^st petitioner has agreed to withdraw WP.No.10370/2023 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

¶34

6. Both the petitioners state that agree that, they have no claims over the movable or immovable properties belonging to each

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21687-DB MFA No. 7015 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

other either existing at present or to be acquired in future.

¶38

7. Both the parties state that they have no claims of whatsoever nature against each other either for the past, present or future.

¶39

8. The parties further state that there has been no collusion or force, fraud or any undue influence in entering into this settlement agreement in the aforesaid manner.

¶40

9. Both the parties admit that they shall not interfere in the lives of each other in future."

¶41

Further, the appellant has agreed to withdraw his appeal resulting in confirmation of the decree for divorce apart from agreeing to withdraw the petition in W.P.No.10370/2023. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a copy of the Pay Order dated 08.04.2021 drawn in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. The appellant and the respondent are present, and they are identified by their respective learned counsels. They reiterate the terms with the appellant acknowledging

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21687-DB MFA No. 7015 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the receipt of Pay Order for Rs.11,00,000/- as aforesaid.

¶46

In the light of the afore, the appeal is allowedin-part confirming the decree of dissolution as is granted by the decree dated 01.08.2023, but on the mutually agreed terms as aforesaid.

¶47

The office is directed to draw the decree

¶48

accordingly.

¶49

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

SD/-

¶51

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶52

SA ct:sr

Smt. Gayathri Kumari Mishra v. Sri. Rajankumar Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gayathri Kumari Mishra v. Sri. Rajankumar Mishra

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

Shyla H K Vs Prashanth T R

Smt. Maria Arpita B Vs Sri Lawrence Prakash

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shanthala P Anchan

Shanthi Kumari P Vs Mr Jeevandas Adyanthaya

The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmipathi

Kum Prema Vs Sri Javed @ Mohammed Zulfikar Pasha