Disposed

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, v. Boppanna Sathayanarayana

Telangana HC9 Mar 2012CMA/116/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of divorce and restitution of conjugal rights appeals based on a consolidated memorandum of compromise filed by the parties, who expressed a desire to live together. The earlier decree of divorce was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeals and cross objections were disposed of; the decree of divorce in OP No.55 of 1996 was set aside; the memorandum of compromise became part of the record.

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, Vs Boppanna Sathayanarayana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶2

CMA No.114 OF 2005 AND XOBJS & CMA No.116 OF 2005

¶3

COMMON ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J )

¶4

The 1^st respondent in these appeals filed OP No.55 of 1996 under Section 13 (1) (I) and 13 (1) (IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to pass a decree of divorce in respect of the marriage between him and the appellant herein. The appellant herein also filed OP No.25 of 1998 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Since the parties are same, both the OPs were heard and tried together. The Court below considering the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the OP filed by the 1^st respondent herein and granted a decree of divorce while dismissing the OP filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals by the appellant herein. The 1^st respondent herein has also filed XOBJS in CMA No.114 of 2005 in so far as holding against him on point no.1 by the Court below.

¶5

2. Now when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties reported that both parties have settled the disputes among themselves and now they want to live together amicably and for that propose the husband and wife have entered into a memorandum of compromise and the said memorandum of compromise is filed into the Court by way of petition being CMAMP No.398 of 2012. 3. We have interviewed the parties in chambers and they have stated that they want to live together. The memorandum of compromise is signed by them and their respective counsel.

¶6

4. In the light of the terms stated in the memorandum of compromise, the above appeals and XOBJS filed by the appellant and 1^st respondent stand disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise filed by way of a petition in CMAMP No.398 9f 2012

¶7

in CMA No.116 of 2005. As a consequence of the terms of the memorandum agreed to by the parties, the judgment and decree in OP No.55 of 1996 is set aside. The memorandum of compromise be made part of the record. No costs.

¶8

_________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _________________ K.S.Appa Rao,J Dated: 9-3-2012 Nrg.

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, v. Boppanna Sathayanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, v. Boppanna Sathayanarayana

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

Smt K. Vinodini Devi , Vinodi Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

K. Sudhakar Reddy Vs K. Venkata Lakshmi

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, Vs Boppanna Sathayanarayana

Smt. v.L.Padmavathi Vs The State of A.P.

M. Sreenivasulu naidu Vs The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer