The High Court disposed of mutual consent appeals challenging a divorce dismissal and restitution decree. Parties settled amicably and signed a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the Court to grant a decree of divorce by consent.
Granted decree of divorce by consent dissolving marriage dated 21.06.2012; appeals disposed of in terms of Memorandum of Compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.02.2020 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.M.A.Nos.1251 & 1252 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.6425 of 2017
G.Alagu Ganesh ... Appellant in both appeals (Petitioner in HMOP.589 of 2014 & Respondent in HMOP.206 of 2016 ) Vs K.Murugajothi ...Respondent in both appeals (Petitioner in HMOP.206 of 2016 & Respondent in HMOP.589 of 2014 ) COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 19 of Family Court's Act read with Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.12.2016 made in H.M.O.P.Nos.589 of 2014 & 206 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sriram For Respondent : Mr.K.Myilsamy C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)
Both the appeals have been filed by the husband aggrieved over the dismissal of the H.M.O.P.No.589 of 2014 filed by him seeking for divorce and allowing of the petition filed by the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.206 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights.
2.The appellant and respondent got married on 21.06.2012. After living together for about four months, they got separated due to dispute among themselves. Thereafter only, the above petitions have been filed. After contest, the divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband was dismissed and the petition to restore the conjugal rights filed by the respondent/wife was allowed. Aggrieved over the said order, the present appeals have been filed.
3.When the matter came up before this Court earlier, this Court directed the parties to settle the matter amicably as
almost eight years have crossed after their separation and no useful purpose will be achieved without divorce.
4.When the matter is called today, both the parties appeared before this Court and they thought over and decided to settle the matter and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise signed by both the parties and by their respective Counsel. The appellant is present along with his father Mr.P.Ganesan and the respondent is present along with her sister and her husband.
5.Both the parties would submit that they have amicably settled and they agreed for divorce by mutual consent and signed the Memorandum of Compromise. In view of the above situation and the settlement made by both the parties, there is no use of continuing the marriage.
6.In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court grants the decree of divorce by consent by dissolving the marriage dated 21.06.2012 between the appellant and the respondent.
7.In the result, these appeals are disposed of in terms of Memorandum of Compromise. The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the decree. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.
Copy To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras-104. +2cc to Mr.M.Sriram , Advocate, S.R.No.15440 +1cc t o Mr.K.Myilsamy , Advocate, S.R.No.14980 C.M.A.Nos.1251 & 1252 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.6425 of 2017 SV(CO) CS/12/08/2020
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeals filed to set aside the divorce and restitution of conjugal rights orders should be disposed of based on a mutual compromise.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.Alagu Ganesh
K.Murugajothi
N.Kirubakaran
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
