Disposed

Syed Wali Peeran v. Syeda Sabiha Fatima

Madras HC5 Mar 2014CRP(MD)/59/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging jurisdiction after recording a joint memorandum of compromise between the parties seeking dissolution of marriage, directing the trial court to decree the suit accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The joint memorandum of compromise is recorded and the trial court is directed to decree the decree for dissolution of marriage.

Syed Wali Peeran Vs Syeda Sabiha Fatima — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 05.03.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.59 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

¶7

1.Syed Wali Peeran 2.Syed Taj Peeran .. Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1 & 2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Syeda Sabiha Fatima .. Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the revision petitioners seeking the relief of striking off the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009, pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.S.Abdul Khadar For Respondent : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009, have come forward with this memorandum of civil revision with a prayer to struck off the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 which is pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.

¶14

It is manifested from the records that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 as against the revision petitioners/defendants on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli seeking the relief of dissolving the marriage that took place on 10.08.2008 between the respondent/plaintiff and the first revision petitioner/first defendant. That suit was contested by the revision petitioners being the defendants 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note here that the first defendant-Syed Wali Peeran is the son of the second defendant-Syed Taj Peeran and the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first revision petitioner/first defendant-Mr.Syed Vali Peeran has presently been working at Libia and since he is not able to come down to India to sign in all the papers relating to the suit, he has given Specific Power of Attorney in favour of his father, who is the second revision petitioner/second defendant herein and in his capacity as the second dependant as well as the power agent of his son/first defendant, he has been contesting the suit. Only under this circumstance, they have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition to struck off the plaint on the ground that the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli is not having the competent jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

¶17

Today, when the Revision Petition is taken up for hearing, both the revision petitioners/defendants as well as the respondent/plaintiff have jointly filed a memorandum of compromise saying that they have amicably settled their dispute and therefore, they have urged this Court to record the joint memorandum of compromise and pass appropriate orders.

¶18

The respondent/plaintiff-Mrs.Syeda Sabiha Fatima is also present in person and Mr.Syed Taj Peeran being the second revision petitioner as well as second defendant is also present in person for himself as well as on behalf of the first revision petitioner. Their respective counsels are also present.

¶19

It is revealed from the joint memorandum of compromise that the first revision petitioner/first defendant and the respondent/plaintiff had solemnized their marriage on 10.08.2008 and separated ever since from 10.09.2008 onwards and they have been living separately without any possibility of reunion. The actual matrimonial life between the first revision petitioner and the respondent being only 23 days and ever since the above date of separation, there is no matrimonial relationship or contact between the first revision petitioner/first defendant and respondent/plaintiff for the past 5-½ years and they have also no issue ie., offspring.

¶20

In view of the subsisting matrimonial dispute between the first revision petitioner/first defendant and the respondent/plaintiff and since the respondent/plaintiff has initiated various forms of litigation in different forums, according to them, it is an irretrievable breakdown of the said marriage and therefore, with the object of Mediation and Conciliation to settle the subsisting matrimonial dispute, they have jointly entered into a memorandum of compromise on the following mutual terms and conditions and the same reads as follows:-

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

“a. The first petitioner and the respondent hereby mutually agree to dissolve their marriage dated 10.08.2008.

¶24

b. The petitioners conceded and agreed to give consent for dissolution of marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent held on 10.08.2008 in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli without admitting the allegations and to this effect they will file a submit to decree memo.

¶25

c. The respondent withdraws all her allegations against the petitioners without prejudice to her right of divorce in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli.

¶26

d. The respondent shall withdraw the following cases filed against the petitioners and their family members, within a period of two weeks from the date of this “Joint Memo of Compromise”.

¶27

i) Crl.M.P.No.5017 of 2008 in DVC No.165 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II filed by the respondent against petitioners 1 and 2 and their family members namely Syeda Alia Begum, Syed Ali Peeran, Syeda Thahira Dawood and Syed Dawood.

¶28

ii) C.C.No.90 of 2009 filed by the respondent against the petitioners 1 and 2 and their family members namely Syeda Alia Begum, Syed Ali Peeran, Syeda Thahira Dawood and Syed Dawood.

¶29

iii) Maintenance Claim Petition bearing M.C.No.80 of 2012 filed by the respondent against the first petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli.

¶30

iv) C.R.P(MD)No.31 of 2013 filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the Honourable High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench at Madurai.

¶31

e. The petitioners shall withdraw the following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases filed against the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of this “Joint Memo of Compromise”.

¶32

¶33

i) Crl.O.P.No.22340 of 2013 filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the above Crl.M.P.No.5017 of 2008 in DVC No.165 of 2008.

¶34

ii) Crl.O.P.No.5031 of 20099 filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 and their above said family members seeking to quash C.C.No.90 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli.

¶35

iii) O.S.No.83 of 2013 filed by the first petitioner against the respondent seeking for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Madurai.

¶36

f) The petitioners and the respondent shall file necessary affidavit in Crl.O.P.No.22340 of 2013 and Crl.O.P.No.5031 of 2009 and quash the respective cases.

¶37

g) The respondent hereby declares that she has no claims, complaints or grievances of any sort, against the petitioners and their said family members in view of the above said Joint Memo of Compromise and she hereby withdraws all claims, complaints and grievances including monetary claims, jewellery claims etc., made against the petitioners and their family members and she will not pursue the same, any further in any manner whatsoever either directly or indirectly.

¶38

h) The petitioners and their family members hereby declare that they have no claims, complaints or grievances of any sort against the respondent and their family members in view of the above said Joint Memo of Compromise the petitioners and their said family members hereby withdraw all claims, complaints and grievances including monetary claims, jewellery claims etc., made against the respondent and their family members and they will not pursue the same any further in any manner whatsoever either directly or indirectly.

¶39

i) The respondent hereby undertakes not to execute any warrant of arrest either bailable or non-bailable issued against the petitioners and their family members by the Honourable Courts at her instance and shall take appropriate steps to withdraw all the connected criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases within the time stipulated in this Joint Memo of Compromise.

¶40

¶41

j) Since the first petitioner is conducting all the proceedings through his father ie., the second petitioner, the first petitioner have to give consent letter in writing by agreeing and accepting this terms of compromise to the respondent directly by post and email and also handover a copy in original to the respondent's Counsel at the time of hearing of Crl.O.P.No.22340 of 2013 and Crl.O.P.No.5031 of 2009.

¶42

k) The petitioners and the respondent are entitled to settle their respective life independently by choosing their own spouses as per their wishes and they have no bar for the same.

¶43

l) The petitioners and the respondent herein mutually agree and consent to record this Joint Memo of Compromise in the above proceedings before this Honourable Court and they undertake to abide by the same, in order to settle the matrimonial dispute subsisting between them amicably.”

¶44

In this connection, Mr.S.M.S.Abdul Khader, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent have jointly submitted that the joint memorandum of compromise might be recorded and appropriate orders might be passed in this case.

¶45

This Court has perused the averments of the memorandum of joint compromise and heard the submissions made by the learned Counsels viz., Mr.S.M.S.Abdul Khader and Mr.A.Haja Mohideen. Having regard to the related facts and circumstances narrated in the memorandum of joint compromise and since there is no possibility of reunion between the first revision petitioner and the respondent, this Court finds that the memorandum of compromise may be recorded and the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 may be decreed as prayed for.

¶46

Accordingly, the joint memorandum of compromise filed by the revision petitioners as well as respondent is recorded and the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 is ordered to be decreed as prayed for. The memorandum of joint compromise submitted by the revision petitioners 1 and 2 as well as the respondent herein is recorded and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the learned District Munsif, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruchirapalli to decree the suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2009 pending on his file as prayed for, in view of the joint memorandum of compromise filed by both the parties viz., the revision

¶47

¶48

petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and respondent/plaintiff. The compliance of the direction issued by this Court shall have to be intimated to the office of the Registry forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶49

Sub Assistant REgistrar

¶50

¶51

The District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli.

¶52

+2ccs to Mr.A.Hajamohideen, Advocate Sr No.13960.

¶53

+1cc to Mr.M.N.S.Mohamed Habeeb, Advocate Sr No.13794.

¶54

Copy to: The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶55

¶56

msm 06.03.2014 p6/6c

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Syed Wali Peeran v. Syeda Sabiha Fatima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Wali Peeran v. Syeda Sabiha Fatima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanam Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd.

J.Reka Vs M.Natarajan

Raj Kumar Vs Mrs.Mary Saroja

Santhana Gopalakrishnan @ Vs Viji @ Vijipriya

T.Poornam, Vs Rm.Alagammai

Syed Ali, Vs Chellaammal