✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 26 Jul 2010

D.Naveen Patel v. D.Sunitha @ Lavanya

No. 130 of 2008DSRV2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
26 Jul 2010
Bench
DSRV

Outcome

Allowed

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court had referred the matter to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and accordingly, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee had conducted the conciliation and a report also has been filed. Notwithstanding the…
  • Para 88. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 by mutual consent. A copy of Memorandum of Terms of Compromise be appended, which shall form…

Judgment

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.130 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner (husband).

2.

This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the husband challenging the order and decree dated 30-11-2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in dismissing F.C.O.P.No.815 of 2005 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1955’) seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife that took place on 04-5-2003.

3.

During the pendency of the appeal, this Court had referred the matter to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and accordingly, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee had conducted the conciliation and a report also has been filed. Notwithstanding the said report and the conditions incorporated therein, a Memorandum of Terms of Compromise has been filed before this Court signed by both the parties.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife is not present. However, the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband are present before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant identified the appellant and in turn, he identified the respondent-wife. The respondent- wife also identified the appellant-husband. Therefore, we do not feel it essential that the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent to record the compromise is necessary.

5.

The said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise contained the signatures of both the parties. They identified their respective signatures. Their signatures also were identified by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the versions of the appellant and the respondent, who are present physically before this Court nor do we have any doubt about their identity to the proceedings as wife and husband.

6.

As per the Memorandum of Terms of Compromise, respondent-wife consented dissolution of the marriage with the appellant-husband unconditionally, along with some other conditions as were incorporated in the said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise.

7.

Accordingly, we treat this appeal as the one filed under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955.

Operative part

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 by mutual consent. A copy of Memorandum of Terms of Compromise be appended, which shall form part of this judgment. Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 26th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.130 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 26th July, 2010. (Ak)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Family Courts Act, 1984 — s. 19; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(ia).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Jul 2010. The bench was DSRV.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. No. 130 of 2008). ← Search more judgments