The High Court disposed of an appeal challenging a Family Court maintenance decree based on a compromise settlement wherein the appellant paid a lump sum and the respondent withdrew a cross appeal.
The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise memo dated 18-03-2019.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
F.C.A.NO. 34 OF 2006
Dated: 18.03.2019
Between:
Dr.B.Shyam Sunder Raj
…APPELLANT
And
Dr. V.Padma Krupanandam
…RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. E.Samba Siva Pratap
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.Padma for Sri B.Nalin
Kumar
The Court made the following:
THE HONVBLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIE T.AMARNATH GOUD
IA.NO.1 OF 2019 IN FCA.NO.34 OF 2006 AND FCA.NO.34 OF 2006
O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The appellant – Dr. B.Shyam Sunder Raj, has challenged the legality of the order and decree dated, 21-12-2005 passed by the Family court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.404 of 2004, whereby he was directed to pay past maintenance to the respondent/ petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000/ - per month, for a period of three years, prior to the filing of the petition, and to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/ - per month from the date of the petition.
During the pendency of the present appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise. A memorandum of compromise has been submitted by both the parties, which shall be taken on record. Both the parties who are present before this court and identified by their respective counsel, have stated ad idem that they have entered into compromise.
They have filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 in FCA.No.34 of 2006, to dispose of the appeal in terms of the memorandum of compromise dated 18-03-2019 entered into between them.
The first party to the memorandum of compromise is the respondent, and the second party is the appellant in the appeal. The terms of the compromise are reproduced as under:
| Sl.No. | D.D.No. | Date | Name the Bank |
of | Amount in rupees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (i) | 500242 | 16-03-2019 | Bank India |
of | 9,00,000/ - |
| (ii) | 500245 | 16-03-2019 | -do- | 5,00,000/- | |
| (iii) | 500244 | 16-03-2019 | -do- | 1,00,000/- | |
| (iv) | 500243 | 16-03-2019 | -do- | 5,00,000/- |
Therefore, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is ordered, and the present appeal
is disposed of in terms of the said compromise.
Registry is directed to draft the decree accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------------------- RAGHAVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN,J
------------------------------------------------------- T.AMARNATH GOUD,J
DATE:18—03—2019 AVS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be disposed of by recording a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. B. Shyam Sunder Raj
Dr. V. Padma Krupanandam
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
T. Amarnath Goud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
