This judgment allowed Family Court Appeal No. 132 of 2015 and amended O.P. No. 1550 of 2011 to grant dissolution of marriage by mutual consent based on a settlement memo containing financial terms and custody arrangements.
Allowed both IA and FCA; decreed O.P. on amended terms granting divorce by mutual consent.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD I.A.No.6 of 2018 & I.A.(USR) No.76781 of 2018 In/and F.C.A.No.132 of 2015
DATE: 12-10-2018
Between:
C.Ramulu
..... APPELLANT
AND
Smt.C.Suguna
.....RESPONDENT
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Sri MADHAVA RAO AMBADIPUDI
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : Ms.NASEEB AFSHAN
..... APPELLANT
.....RESPONDENT
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CVNR,J & TA,J FCA.132 of 2015
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE T.AMARNATH GOUD
I .A.No.6 of 2018 & I .A.(USR) No.76781 of 2018 I n/ and F.C.A.No.132 of 2015
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order and Decree, dated 28.07.2014, in O.P.No.1550 of 2011, on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby the aforementioned O.P filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act’) has been dismissed.
During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.No.6 of 2018 to permit himself and the respondent to settle the dispute and to grant a decree of divorce. Along with the said application, the appellant filed a joint memo, signed by both the parties and their respective counsel, which contains the following terms of settlement:
CVNR,J & TA,J FCA.132 of 2015
3
withdrawal of M.C.No.43 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Addl.Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the respondent on 22.06.2018, out of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) towards her permanent alimony and the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) shall be paid by way of D.D. to the respondent at the time of obtaining divorce decree.
A separate application is filed vide USR No.76781/2018 by the appellant seeking permission to amend O.P.No.1550 of 2011 for grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Act in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding-cum Joint Compromise Memo, dated 29.01.2018.
At the hearing, the appellant as well as the respondent along with their two daughters are personally present. The respondent acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) through Demand Drafts and Cheques, as per the terms of the memorandum of compromise. She also expressed her willingness for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Act.
In the light of the above, both the Interlocutory Applications are allowed. Registry is directed to assign regular number to I.A.(USR) No.76781/2018. Consequently, F.C.A.No.132 of 2015 is allowed.
CVNR,J & TA,J FCA.132 of 2015
4
O.P.No.1550 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, as amended, is decreed by granting decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties by mutual consent. No order as to costs.
____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
_____________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J
Date: 12.10.2018 Dsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court can allow amendment of O.P. and decree dissolution by mutual consent upon settlement.
Whether the conditions laid by parties in the joint memo are accepted by the Family Court.
What reliefs are granted in O.P. No. 1550 of 2011 during the pending appeal?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Ramulu
Smt. C. Suguna
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
T.AMARNATH GOUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
