Disposed

Mokurala Srinivas Goud v. Mounika

Telangana HC9 Mar 2021CMA/372/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act based on a compromise memorandum dated 10.01.2021. The parties agreed to dissolve their marriage and the appellant paid Rs. 11,50,000 to the respondent. The Court recorded the compromise and passed the decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The CMA was disposed of in terms of the compromise memorandum, and the decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage was granted.

Mokurala Srinivas Goud Vs Mounika — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF IMARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶8

C.M.A. NO: 372OF 2020

¶9

Appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, against the JudgmenV decree in HMOP No.13 of 2017 dated 09/06/2020 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nagarkurnool.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mokurala Srinivas Goud,

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Mounika, W/o. Srinivas Goud, D/o. Vinod Goud,

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 of the CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compromise the CMA 37212020 by granting the decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage dated 15/05/20'14 between the appellant and the Respondent.

¶18

For the Appellant : SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI, Advocate

¶19

For the Respondent : SRI P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, Advocate

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGTVENT

¶21

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEM'S'RAMACHANDRARAO} AND HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T'VINOD KUMAR}

¶22

OU SAP^{PEALNo.312 of 2020} CIVI^{L MISCEL}

¶23

JUDGMENT^{i f erSri Justice M'S'RomachandraRoo)}

¶24

The dispute^{in this CMA was referredto the High CourtLegal} Services^{Committeeto explore the possibilityof settlement between the} parties and^{itis brought to our noticethat a Compromise-cum-} Memorandum^{of Understandingdatecll0'01'2021has been enteredinto} between^{the parties dissolving the marriage between them and that} (Rupees Eleven pursuant to^{the said compromisea sumof Rs'1 I} '50'000/lakhs and^{fifty thousandonly) was also paid by the appellantto the} resPondent.

¶25

Both the^{counsel represented that the parties had entered into the} saicl arrangement^{which resultedin the compromise betweenthe parties} referred^{to above'}

¶26

3' Therefore,^{this CMA is disposed of in terms of the Compromise-} cum.MemorandumofUnderstandingdatedl0.0l.202lenteredintoby the Parties.

¶27

Pending^{miscellaneouspetitions'if any' shall also standclosed' No}

¶28

costs.

¶29

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

The Senior^{Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool'Mahabubna.garDistrict'}

¶34

i. d;Lt i;^{sri'suoiftriantrlalusari, Advocate (gPyp]} -

¶35

5;; ca^{i; a;i Fviinnrrutonun"Reoav,Advocate(oPUC)}

¶36

- Two iir""rd"*iin CD^Copies i".,ini^{r"ro filedby the appellant and Respondent)} t. ., L" 'Jr

'Jr kr<-

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/03/2021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.372 of 2020

s 14
(.)
r) 19 t''lAfl 2021
't *

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE.

¶44

..,.
6 ^9
o-

¶45

$.--4F-

¶46

*^"^{oF TELANGANA} rN^rHEHoN',BLE ""', ::::l#;#:

¶47

of²⁰²¹ I A'No' or^2o2o cMA No ';l

¶48

Appeanvpe,,.ner $$;;6.g:ri:*.mln;:ff'-' . AND.

¶49

. AND. *o^oo'' *"'*ndenv^Respondent

¶50

H#HilJii#"y,Tl#;"'"";"u'o#ol

¶51

]OIl\r;^MEMO

¶52

May^{i! pleaseyour lordship'} -^^{,-,,tdAhvthe appeant / my}

¶53

1.^{lt i5 submittedthat the presentCl'4A 37211020 is filedbY} husband^who ''^{tnn''"':;;;In' oo'.,*' or the' di:rce case in HM.P} 13/2017'^Decree '"'^{;;:^:;"'o o''ou-'o'obv theHon'bresr'civir}

¶54

ludge,^{N3garkarnool'}

¶55

d the^{appellant heldon 15-05'2014}

¶56

marriage^{beh'veellme an}

¶57

2.^{I submit that the} arose^{beb/veenme andthe} After^{the marriaoe the disputes}

¶58

at^Nagarkamool undisclosed^{reasons l filed} and^other

¶59

apPellant^{on account} of^{incompatibililes} under^{Sec' 498A andother} the^{cnminal case tIR 93/2016for the offences} pending^{h trial CC 137/2017} provisions^{of $e p€nal laws and the Same are} Hon'ble^{IFCM' KollaPUr'}

¶60

pending^{on theRleof}

¶61

ishers^{and eldemof the troth parties}

¶62

of^{th€ well w} entered^into

¶63

3.^{I submitthat theinteNention} court.^{The Parties} r^{amicablY out of the} an^amoLlntof

¶64

seded^thematte and^future

¶65

comPromise^{cumMOU'accordlngly the aPpellant agreed} nt, Past,^{to PresentPaY} s^{tull and final settleme} id^reasons'I

¶66

Ps.1l,5O,O00/'toward nent^{allmony'That dueto the sa} malntenance^including the^Perma ution^{of marriaqedt' 15'5'} raw^{all the cJses andfor dissol}

¶67

came^{fonvard to withd} ,MH

¶68

,MH

¶69

Scanned^{by CamScanner}

¶70

I I

¶71

2014 in^{between me and appellant bt letting decree and judgmentof divorce.} I arso^{move compromisepetifion for withdrawal and quish of CCL37l2or7.}

¶72

It is therefre^{prayed that this Hon'ble court m3ybe pleased to record the} compromise^{statementan( allow the clvlA37712020'by grantingthe decree of} divorce by^{dissolution of marriage 'Jated 15-5-2014between Respondentand} appellant^{and passsuch otherordet or ordersas thisHon'ble court may deem} fit and^{proper in the interest of justice'}

¶73

Hence this^JointMemo'

¶74

,@p-+y

¶75

Appellant / Husband.

¶76

Respondent/ Wife.

¶77

¶78

Counsel for the Appellnat.

¶79

a Kr,

¶80

Counsel for the^Respondent.

¶81

Scanned by CamScanncr

Mokurala Srinivas Goud v. Mounika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokurala Srinivas Goud v. Mounika

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

Lakshmi N Nair Vs The State of Telangana

V Charan Vs The State of Telangana

Sruthi Nair Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sai Jeetesh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aniket Sheth and Another

Syed Luqman Abbas Razvi Vs The Central Board of Direct Taxes Government of India and 10 others

M.D., Apsddcf Ltd., Hyd Vs M.D., Tsddcf Ltd., Hyd and 8 Ot