Allowed

Nampally Ravikath, Hyderabad v. N Asha Jyothi, Hyderabad

Telangana HC4 Apr 2018FCA/211/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court settled the dispute between the parties who had filed a divorce appeal. The appellant agreed to pay Rs.15 lakhs as full and final settlement. The respondent confirmed receipt and consented to the divorce. The court allowed the interim application to record dissolution of marriage via mutual consent divorce and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.1 of 2018 allowed; marriage dissolved by mutual consent divorce; F.C.A.No.211 of 2017 disposed of; no order as to costs.

Nampally Ravikath, Hyderabad Vs N Asha Jyothi… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

And

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

¶4

I.A.No.1 of 2018 In/and F.C.A. No. 211 of 2017

¶5

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶6

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.09.2015, passed in O.P.No.651 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein an application filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage, was dismissed, the present appeal came to be filed.

¶7

1. The facts in issue are as under:

¶8

The appellant herein filed O.P.No.651 of 2014 seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 29.02.2012 solemnized between the appellant and respondent. Vide judgment dated 19.09.2015, the learned Judge, Family Court, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, dismissed the said O.P. Challenging the same the present Appeal came to be filed.

¶9

During pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2018 came to be filed to record the dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent. It is stated in the affidavit that pursuant to the

¶10

¶11

interaction made by the Court with the parties inter se, they entered into a settlement. Pursuant to the said settlement, the appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs towards full and final settlement.

¶12

Today, the appellant and respondent are present. Sri K.Ramesh Babu, Advocate, identified the appellant and Sri R.Sridhar, Advocate, identified the respondent. When examined, the appellant stated that they have settled the matter and both the parties agreed to stay separately.

¶13

In the affidavit filed along with the petition, it has been stated that the appellant agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/ - to the respondent towards full and final settlement. When examined, the respondent-wife stated that she has received a sum of Rs.15.00 laksh as agreed upon and has no objection for granting divorce. It was further stated that the said amount was deposited in A/ c No.20081131916 in State Bank of India, Gaddiannaram Branch.

¶14

Having regard to the above and since the parties have settled the disputes, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

¶15

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is allowed and the marriage between the appellant and respondent dated 29.02.2012 is hereby dissolved, by granting mutual consent divorce. Consequently,

¶16

¶17

F.C.A.No.211 of 2017 is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶19

______________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J

¶20

04.04.2018 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday B/ o gkv

Nampally Ravikath, Hyderabad v. N Asha Jyothi, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nampally Ravikath, Hyderabad v. N Asha Jyothi, Hyderabad

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

A Venkata Ramana Vs the State of Tg

Smt.M.Laxmi and 3 Ors. Vs M.Krishna Murthy

V.S. Sai Teja Vs State of T.S.

D. Padma, Vs The State of Telangana

Nandini Bai Vs Cheif Secretary ( G.a) and 2 Others

Pasthanam Padmaram , Venkatesh, Mahabubnagar District Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad