Telangana High Court
FCA/135/2012 of D. Rambabu Vs N.Jyothi Kumari on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY F.C.A.M.P.No.517 of 2014 in/and F.C.A.No.135 of 2012 ORDER: (Per MSM,J) F.C.A.M.P.No.517 of 2014 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. to record compromise. The petitioner and the respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
F.C.A.M.P.No.517 of 2014in/andF.C.A.No.135 of 2012
ORDER: (Per MSM,J)
F.C.A.M.P.No.517 of 2014 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3C.P.C. to record compromise.
The petitioner and the respondent married way-back in the year2009 at Aryasamaj, Secunderabad and later, due to the differencesbetween them, they are living separately, which lead the petitioner tofile O.P.No.624 of 2010 before the Judge, Family Court,Secunderabad, to declare their marriage as null and void. The saidO.P. was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on 21.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred F.C.A.No.135 of 2012.
During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and therespondent entered into compromise and as per the terms of thecompromise, the petitioner has to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondenttowards full and final settlement of all her claims includingmaintenance and permanent alimony and accordingly, a memorandumof compromise was executed duly signed by both the petitioner andthe respondent, and the same was filed along with F.C.A.M.P.No.517of 2014.
In compliance with the compromise between the parties, thepetitioner paid Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh and fifty rupees only)to the respondent by way of demand draft bearing No.472202, dated29.12.2014, drawn on State Bank of India and the same is handedover to the respondent in Court today and that the receipt of the sameis acknowledged by the respondent.
Both the parties appeared in person in Court today and they areidentified by their respective Counsel. Considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, we find that the compromise is voluntaryand in the interest of both the parties. Hence, we find that it is a fitcase to record compromise between the parties entered outside theCourt.
Accordingly, F.C.A.M.P.No.517 of 2014 is allowed in terms ofmemorandum of compromise filed along with F.C.A.M.P. Consequently, F.C.A.No.135 of 2012 is allowed declaring themarriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void.There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions,pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
_____________________________
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J
31[st] December, 2014GHN