The Madras High Court disposed of the second appeal filed by M.Vasantha against divorce decrees. Upon hearing that parties had settled and filed a joint compromise memo, the court allowed the appeal to save the marriage and closed the connected petition.
Second appeal allowed; judgments and decrees set aside based on joint compromise memo to save the marriage.
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.
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:22.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.S.A.(MD).No.24 of 2010 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
M.Vasantha
Appellant/Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
S.P.Manoharan Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act r/w Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and Decree in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001 dated 11.09.2003, on the file of Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, in and by which the judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 1995 dated 25.08.2000, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli was confirmed.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Y.Jagadeesh
J U D G M E N T
Today, when the Civil Miscellaenous Second Appeal is taken up for hearing, it is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the issue has been settled between the parties and a joint compromise memo dated 07.11.2020, has also been filed to that effect by the parties, which reads as follows:-
"Appellant and respondent submit as follows:-
1.Appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaenous Second Appeal against the judgment and Decree in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001 dated 11.09.2003 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli and the Judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 1995 dated 25.08.2000, on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The appellant and respondent married on 23.11.1964, according to Hindu Rites and customs at Parasakthy Buildings, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction. Out of the lawful wedlock 2 female children and a male child were born to the appellant and respondent.
3.The respondent herein who is the petitioner in the lower Court had filed H.M.O.P.No.28/1995 under Section 13 (1) (11) and (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Lower Court had come to a conclusion that the ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (11) had not been proved. But
1/3
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
the lower Court had allowed the petition under Section 13 (1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4.The appellant filed appeal in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001. Appellate Court confirmed the lower Court order.
7.The Appellant and respondent now living together in appellant's home at Chennai.
9.It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this Compromise Memo; allow the CMSA and pass such further or other order suitable to the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
2/3
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli,
C.M.S.A.(MD).No.24 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 Dated 22.01.2021
SVN(CO) KB(17.02.2021) 3P 6C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow a second appeal in matrimonial matters upon the parties filing a joint compromise memo seeking reconciliation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Vasantha
S.P.Manoharan
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
