Partly allowed

Mrs M.v.Indhumathy v. Mr.S.Gokulakrishnan

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CMA/2120/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two civil miscellaneous appeals filed against a Family Court order granting dissolution of marriage to the respondent and restitution of conjugal rights to the appellant. Accepting a joint compromise memorandum executed by both parties, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the dissolution petition, and dismissed the restitution petition.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were disposed of based on the compromise. HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 (dissolution of marriage) was allowed. HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 (restitution of conjugal rights) was dismissed.

Mrs M.v.Indhumathy Vs Mr.S.Gokulakrishnan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07-02-2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 2013

¶7

M.V. Indumathy .. Appellant in both the appeals Versus S. Gokulakrishnan .. Respondent in both the appeals Appeal filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act against the Order dated 20.03.2013 in HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 and HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr. G. Mohanakrishnan in both the appeals For Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBBIAH, J)

¶9

The appellant has come forward with these appeals questioning the validity and correctness of the Order dated 20.03.2013 passed in HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 and HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. By the said Order dated 20.03.2013, the Family Court dismissed HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage and allowed HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶10

It is seen from the records that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.01.2007 at No.76, Mayor Basudev Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 021, as per Hindu rites and customs and subsequently the marriage was registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriage, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013 in Serial No. 18 of 2007.

¶11

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

¶12

According to the appellant, the factum of the marriage between her and the respondent was not known to the respective parents and therefore, after the marriage, they went to their respective house and residing separately. According to the appellant, the marriage was not consummated and they did not live as husband and wife even for a single day. In such circumstances, the appellant has filed HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty. On notice, the respondent has filed HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, upon analysing the oral and documentary evidence held that the appellant never lived with the respondent as a wife and in such a situation the question of subjecting her to matrimonial cruelty does not arise. On the other hand, the respondent expressed his inclination to live with the appellant and therefore dismissed the Petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage and allowed the Petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶13

We have heard the counsel for both sides. When the above appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for both sides submitted that the appellant and the respondent have entered into a compromise to dissolve the matrimonial dispute among themselves. They have also produced a joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 07.02.2018 duly signed by the appellant, respondent and their respective counsel. The Joint Memorandum of compromise reads as follows:-

¶14

“3. It is respectfully submitted that the above said Appellant and the Respondent got their marriage registered on 24.01.2007 and the same was registered before the SRO, Royapuram.

¶15

It is submitted that after their marriage, they never lived together in their matrimonial home as husband and wife.

¶16

It is respectfully submitted that in the above said case, the appellant filed FCOP No. 1338 of 2008 and the respondent filed FCOP No. 1495 of 2008 before the Honourable II Additional Family Court at Chennai, in the above said petitions, common order was passed as against the appellant on 20.03.2013.

¶17

It is submitted that against the order of the Hon'ble II Additional Family Court, at Chennai, the appellant prepared appeals before this Honourable Court and the same is pending till date.

¶18

It is respectfully submitted that the attempt of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners parents for the reunion of the petitioner and the respondent was futile and all their efforts had not given the desired and expected results and there is no chance of the reunion between the petitioner and the

¶19

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

¶20

respondent as both of them decided to dissolve their marriage through divorce and file the compromise memo.

¶21

It is submitted that as per the misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to give divorce to the petitioner.

¶22

It is submitted that the appellant accepted and admitted that there is no past, present or future claims against the respondent and his family relating to the maintenance, return of jewels and articles and right of property etc.,

¶23

It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to accept this Compromise Memo and pass further suitable orders in terms of this Compromise Memo and thus render justice.“

¶24

In the light of the above compromise memo dated 07.02.2018 entered into between the appellant and the respondent, we set aside the common order dated 20.03.2013 passed in HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 and HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 07.02.2018. Consequently, HMOP No. 1338 of 2008 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage is allowed and HMOP No. 1495 of 2008 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise The Memo of Compromise shall form part of the records. No costs.

¶25

here enclosed Xerox copy of Memo of Compromise Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar rsh To The II Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Chennai.

¶27

+3ccs to Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.9195 +1cc to Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra, Advocate, S.R.No.9223

¶28

CMA Nos. 2120 & 2121/2013

¶29

gp(co) cs/15/03/2018

¶30

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

Mrs M.v.Indhumathy v. Mr.S.Gokulakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs M.v.Indhumathy v. Mr.S.Gokulakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Bhavani Textiles Vs The Tamil Nadu Pollution

Mrs. Glynis Fatthduck Worth Vs P. Saravanan

C. Kanagalakshmi Vs P. Saravanan

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs Kathiresan

The Managing Director Vs Manjunath

M. Sheela Vs G. Nageswaran