Sau Pratima Raju Gajbhiye vs Raju Shankar Gajbhiye,Nagpur
2017 Latest Caselaw 1268 Bom

 2903FCA32.14-Judgment                                                                          1/2


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 FAMILY COURT APPEAL  NO.  32   OF    2014


 APPELLANT :-                         Sau. Pratima W/o Raju Gajbhiye, Aged about
 PETITIONER                           38 years, Occ. Househld work, R/o. Resident
                                      of C/o. B.T.Dongre, 6/11, Park Road, Indore
                                      (M.P.).

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENT :-                        Shri Raju s/o Shankar Gajbhiye, aged about
                                      40   years,   occu.   Service,   R/o   C/o   Shri
                                      Harishchandra   Deshbhratar,   Bada   Indora,
                                      Bhim Chowk, Nagpur. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mrs. P.M.Chandekar, counsel for the appellant.
                     Mr.M.B.Agasti, counsel for the respondent.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 29.03.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

The learned counsel for the parties have tendered a joint

compromise pursis in the court today. The same is accepted on record

and is marked as exhibit-Z.

The compromise pursis is signed by the appellant and the

respondent and also by their respective counsel.

  2903FCA32.14-Judgment                                                                  2/2




            The  parties are personally present  in  the court  today.     On  a

query being made to the parties in regard to the agreement over the

terms in the joint compromise pursis, they have answered in the

affirmative. The parties are ad idem on the terms mentioned in the

compromise. We have perused the contents of the compromise pursis.

We find that the terms in the compromise pursis are just and

reasonable. Hence, the marriage solemnized between the parties on

08/01/1989 is dissolved by a decree of divorce in terms of the terms

mentioned in the joint compromise pursis. A decree be drawn

accordingly. No costs.

                            JUDGE                                                  JUDGE 


 KHUNTE