Smt Priyanka B.S. Vs Chethan Kumar M

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.149/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶19

IN RPFC NO. 18/2023

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR M S/O MUDDUHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O CHIKKASANDRA SOUNDARYA LAYOUT BEHIND HIMADRI HOTEL BENGALURU-560057

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P.,ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SMT. PRIYANKA B S D/O B T SANTHAKUMAR W/O CHETHAN KUMAR M AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A MANJUNATH SWAMY KRUPA 4TH A CROSS DEVERAYAPATNA NEW EXTENSION TUMKUR TOWN-572104

¶26

...RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. VIKYATH B, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.149/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE AND ETC.

¶29

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

These two petitions are filed by the petitioners who were husband and wife, due to marital discord they legally separated by obtaining judgment and decree of divorce in MC.No.209/2020. The petitioner and respondent have challenged the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in C.Mis.No.149/2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru. The impugned order is passed under Section 125 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) where by the petition filed by the Smt. Priyanka BS divorced wife of Sri. Chethan Kumar M filed a petition for maintenance which came to be allowed granting 12,000/- per month for maintenance, from the date of the order during her life time or till she remarries and litigation expenses of 25,000/-.

¶35

During the pendency of these two petitions both the parties have amicable settled there dispute in order to put an end to the post divorce dispute. They have amicably resolved and agreed to settle these matter between themselves and accordingly, they have filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶38

short ‘ CPC’). Agreeing to jointly and amicably settle the differences by way of this compromise petition. The terms and conditions of the compromise petition reads as follows:

¶39

“3. That during the pendency of the petition, at the intervention of the family friends and well-wishers, both the parties are agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Accordingly the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of ` 6,50,000/- to the respondent as final settlement and the respondent agreed to receive the same. The settlement entered herein is without any pressure by any other or by the parties, over each other, but with free consent of the parties.

¶40

4. That the respondent further submits that she has not having any further claim in future of whatsoever. Today the petitioner is paying the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/by way of 3 demand drafts of Rs.2,00,000/- each of Federal Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, DD bearing 50870796, 50870797 and 50870798 dated 15/4/202 drawn in favour of respondent and Rs.25,000/-by way of cash now given to the respondent. The respondent agreed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 185/2020, on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Tumakuru, in the intended Crl. P. to be filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court.

¶41

5. That the respondent agreed to pay balance Rs.25,000/- and quash the criminal proceedings and agreed that she will co-operate with the petitioner for quashing the proceedings. And further the respondent submits that she has no claim of whatsoever against the petitioner in the joint family property or in the ancestral property of the petitioner.”

¶42

In compliance of the compromise settlement

¶43

agreement filed herein today executed by both the parties in presence of their respective counsels Sri. Chethan Kumar

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶46

tenders three demand drafts for 2,00,000/- each bearing Nos.50870796, 50870797 and 50870798 drawn on Fedral Bank, Gandhi nagar branck, Bangalore dated 15.04.2025. The said demand drafts are received by Smt. Priyanka BS who is present before this Court physically and identified by her counsel on record. It is also aggrieved by Sri. Chethan Kumar that he would pay balance amount of 25,000/- upon Smt.Priyanka BS filing a petition to quash the criminal proceeding for compounding the same.

¶47

Therefore, in all the total settlement agreement as per the compromise application is 6,50,000/- out of which 6,00,000/- is paid by way of three demand drafts today and 25,000/- is paid by cash which are acknowledged by the respondent – Smt. Priyanka BS. In addition to this he has agreed to pay 25,000/- at the time of quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him and his family members.

¶48

This Court has enquired with both the parties with regard to the execution of the compromise petition and whether any force or undue influence is exercised while executing these compromise petition to which both the parties

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶50

submits that they have voluntarily, freely out of their own free consent have executed and signed this compromise petition to put an end to the dispute which is pending before the Court despite the divorce having been obtained.

¶51

In view of both the parties having amicably settled

¶52

their dispute, the present petitions are disposed of.

¶53

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) Both these petitions are disposed of, the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed in C.Mis.No.149/2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru is hereby set aside;

¶56

ii) The parties have amicably settled their dispute towards full and final payment of 6,50,000/- out of which 6,25,000/- is paid today and acknowledged by Smt. Priyanka BS;

¶57

iii) Parties are at liberty to move the appropriate Court for compounding or withdrawal of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner – Sri. Chethan Kumar M and his family members and relatives;

¶58

iv) As ordered accordingly this compromise petition will form part of this order;

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:15994 RPFC No. 43 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2023

¶61

v) In view of the settlement and compromise entered into between the parties herein the Trial Court shall not insist on the presence of the accused - petitioner herein and other accused, as parties have entered into compromise petition and settled their dispute.

¶62

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶63

PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt Priyanka B.S. v. Chethan Kumar M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Priyanka B.S. v. Chethan Kumar M

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

Mr. Satish Babu. G Vs Smt. Supritha S. Rao

Dipak Thakur Vs Sunita Thakur

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Chintamani

Sri G Muniraju Vs Sri Prathap Kumar

Smt.Sridevi K.S. Vs Sri.B.P Chethan

Shri. Prakash Galemmanavar Vs State of Karnataka