Allowed

N.Vijayakumar v. v.Parvathi

Madras HC14 Jul 2017CMA(MD)/1144/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two appeals filed under Family Court Act and Guardian and Wards Act. Parties settled the matter via a joint compromise memo dated 03.06.2017, involving payment from the appellant to the respondent, leading to closure of connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of in terms of joint memorandum of compromise. Connected petitions closed. No costs.

N.Vijayakumar Vs v.Parvathi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1144 and 1145 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10317 and 10318 of 2016

¶6

N.Vijayakumar : Appellant in both C.M.As./Petitioner in both H.M.O.P.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

V.Parvathi : Respondent in both C.M.As./Respondent in both H.M.O.P.

¶9

PRAYER in C.M.A.(MD)No.1144 of 2016 : Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 17.09.2016.

¶10

PRAYER in C.M.A.(MD)No.1145 of 2016 : Appeal is filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order in G.W.O.P.No.46 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 17.09.2016.

¶11

For Appellant : M/s.Thenmozhi Shiva Perumal For Respondent : Mr.S.Stalin Muthu

¶12

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T ********************

¶13

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.]

¶14

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1144 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 17 September, 2016, in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2016, partly allowing the Original Petition filed by the appellant for divorce.

¶15

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1145 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 17 September, 2016, in G.W.O.P.No.46 of 2016, dismissing the Petition filed by the appellant for guardianship.

¶16

During the currency of the appeals, the parties have settled the matter.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The parties have filed a joint memorandum of compromise dated 03 June, 2017, indicating the terms and conditions of the settlement. As per the settlement dated 03 June, 2017, the appellant has to pay a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Thousand only). The appellant has paid the said amount to the respondent by way of three Demand Drafts bearing No.379346, dated 24.05.2017 [Rs.40,000/-], No.379345, dated 24.05.2017 [Rs.5,00,000/-] and No.03877, dated 30.05.2017 [Rs.4,00,000/-].

¶20

The respondent is present in Court today. We have enquired with the respondent with regard to the settlement. She confirmed that she has signed the joint memorandum of compromise and she is prepared to receive the amount. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.9,40,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) was handed over to the respondent.

¶21

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in terms of the joint memorandum of compromise. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

(*)JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO XEROX COPIES ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH

¶28

The Judge,

¶29

The Family Court, Tirunelveli.

¶30

+2ccs to M/s.Thenmozhi ShivaPerumal, Advocate, SR.Nos.65543&65544

¶31

+2ccs to M/s.Stalin Muthu, Advocate, SR.Nos.65935 and 65936

¶32

COPY TO:-

¶33

THE SECTION OFFICER, V.R.SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶34

SML RL/7C/2P/KK/SAR3/28/7/2017

¶35

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

¶36

Common Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1144 and 1145 of 2016 Dated: 14.07.2017

N.Vijayakumar v. v.Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Vijayakumar v. v.Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Nagesh, Vs the Deputy General Manager

P. Annakkodi, Vs the District Collector

S. Balasubramaniyam, Vs the Tahsildar

K.Visweswaran, Vs the Member Secretary

V. Ravi Vs Deputy Registrar of Coperative

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Lakshmi