Bombay High Court
Sundareshwaran K. (Suresh) Iyer vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 January, 2021
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
3. Cri. WP 3488-2018.doc
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2018
Sundareshwaran K. (Suresh) Iyer .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents
Ms Asmita Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Petitioner
Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, APP, for the Respondent No. 1 - State
Mr. Anil G. Lalla i/b. Lalla & Lalla, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
Mr. Sundareshwaran K. (Suresh) Iyer, Petitioner present through VC
Mrs. Sangeeta Sundareshwaran K (Suresh) Iyer, Respondent No. 2-in-
person present in Court
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 05.01.2021
( THROUGH VIDEOCONFERENCING )
P. C.
. The matter was kept in the chamber on earlier dates to
explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Admittedly, the
marriage subsisted for less than a month and the parties are staying
separately for the last ten years. After much counseling, both parties
agreed to settle their dispute amicably and have entered into consent
terms.
2. The consent terms dated 05.01.2021 duly signed by the
1 of 4
3. Cri. WP 3488-2018.doc
parties i. e. the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 and their respective
Advocates are tendered in Court. The Respondent No. 2 is personally
present in Court and the Petitioner has appeared through V. C. The
Petitioner has identified his signature, as it appears on the consent
terms. The Respondent No. 2, who is personally present in Court has
also identified her signature, as it appears on the said consent terms.
Both, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 have
identified their respective parties. The said consent terms are taken on
record and marked as 'X' for identification.
3. In the said consent terms, the Respondent No. 2 has agreed
to accept a lump sum payment of Rs. 22,00,000/- from the Petitioner as
a one time settlement, as mentioned in Clause 3(B) of the consent terms.
The Petitioner states that he will make the said payment in three
instalments, as mentioned in Clause 3(B) i. e. Rs. 10,00,000/- on or
before 10.01.2021; Rs. 10,00,000/- on or before 10.02.2021 and Rs.
2,00,000/- on or before 10.03.2021, either by RTGS directly in the
Respondent No. 2's account or he will pay her the said amount, as
mentioned in Clause 3(B) of the consent terms by Demand Draft ( DD )
one day before the date mentioned in the consent terms.
2 of 4
3. Cri. WP 3488-2018.doc
4. The Respondent No. 2, who is personally present in Court
undertakes to abide by the consent terms. She undertakes to give her no
objection to quashing of the proceedings, being
C. C. No. 1022/PW/1212 which is pending before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, in a Petition
filed by the Petitioner in the High Court, in compliance with Clause
3(B) of the consent terms.
5. The Respondent No. 2 also undertakes to file a Petition for
dissolution of their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act i. e. by mutual consent, on the basis of the consent terms drawn
between the parties. Both the parties undertake to extend their full
co-operation towards the early disposal of the divorce Petition with a
joint prayer to waive off the cooling period of 6 months, as they are
residing separately since 2011. The undertakings of both the parties are
accepted.
6. If a Petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent
is filed before the Family Court, Mumbai, the learned Judge to pass
appropriate orders on the said Petition, having regard to the Judgment of
3 of 4
3. Cri. WP 3488-2018.doc
the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur in
Civil Appeal No. 11158 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017, in particular, paras
18 to 21 of the said Judgment.
7. Since the last instalment is due on 10.03.2021, the aforesaid
Petition is adjourned to 15.03.2021. To be listed under the caption
'For recording compliance of the consent terms'.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
4 of 4
