KANNAN v. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR B
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 13(1)(ia)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Appellant acknowledges the receipt of aforesaid cheques totaling to a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43118-DB MFA No. 4356 of 2021 (Rupees forty five lakhs only) from the respondent in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The settlement arrived between…
Judgment
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4356 OF 2021 (FC) BETWEEN: KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka SMT. B M SUNITHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O SRI NAVEEN KUMAR B V D/O SRI MUNIREDDY R/AT NO.199, 7TH CROSS BELLANDURU VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560103. (BY SRI. SURESH S - ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR B V AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY R/AT NO.200, 8TH CROSS BELLANDURU VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 103. …APPELLANT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K - ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT R/W 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.20.04.2021 PASSED IN MC NO.2648/2018 ON THE FILE OF IMPUGNED - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43118-DB MFA No. 4356 of 2021 THE IV-ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below in MC No.2648/2018 dated 20.04.2021 allowing the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by urging various grounds.
Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Suresh S for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty K for the respondent are present before the Court physically inclusive of appellant namely Smt.B.M.Sunitha and respondent namely Sri Naveen Kumar B.V.
Counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. In the memo it is stated that the dispute between the appellant and respondent is - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43118-DB MFA No. 4356 of 2021 amicably settled. The appellant has received a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) by way of cheque bearing No.582836 dated 25.10.2024 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd, Bellanduru Branch, Bengaluru issued by the respondent towards full and final settlement of the matrimonial claims. The appellant has no objection to confirm the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Bengaluru.
In the meanwhile of recording the status of the appeal, counsel for the appellant files another memo dated
25.10.2024 indicating that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) in the form of cheques bearing No.582837 and 582838 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each towards permanent alimony in addition to Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs) has been handed over to the appellant namely Smt.B.M.Sunitha by the respondent namely Sri Naveen Kumar B.V. The same may be taken on record and to dispose the present appeal.
Operative part
Appellant acknowledges the receipt of aforesaid cheques totaling to a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43118-DB MFA No. 4356 of 2021 (Rupees forty five lakhs only) from the respondent in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The settlement arrived between the parties is towards full and final settlement of the matrimonial dispute. Accordingly, the memos are taken on record. In terms of the memos filed by the counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE DKB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(ia).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 20 Apr 2021. The bench was K SOMASHEKAR.
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.