Gujarat High Court
Roshni @ Nehal D/O Vinodkumar ... vs Bhaveshkumar Manharbhai ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2091 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2091 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2166 of 2021
==========================================================
ROSHNI @ NEHAL D/O VINODKUMAR NARSINHBHAI PATEL W/O
BHAVESHKUMAR MANHARBHAI KESHABHAI PATEL
Versus
BHAVESHKUMAR MANHARBHAI KESHABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/07/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. First Appeal No.2091 of 2021 had been
preferred by the original respondent under
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code and Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, dissatisfied by the judgment and
decree dated 07.07.2021 passed in Family
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
Suit No.81 of 2017, whereby the Family
Court allowed the suit and passed the
decree of divorce under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It also directed
the respondent-husband to pay Rs.5000/- per
month to the daughter-Kavya born out of the
said wedlock and Rs.7500/- per month
thereafter till she gets married.
2. First Appeal No.2166 of 2021 challenges
the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2021
arising from the Family Suit No.90 of 2017
before the Family Court, Himmatnagar
preferred by the appellant for restitution
of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The Court while admitting the First
Appeal No.2091 of 2021 on 09.08.2021 had
stayed the decree to the extent it
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
dissolves the marriage. Parties are before
this Court with their respective learned
advocates. They have by way of memorandum
of undertaking amicably resolved the
dispute fully and finally.
4. The memorandum of understanding dated
11.05.2022 in clear terms reflects the
wishes of both the spouses of dissolving
the marriage. The child born out of the
said wedlock on 11.09.2012 named as Kavya,
her custody is given to the appellant-
mother till she attains the age of
majority. Towards the permanent alimony,
the appellant has not chosen to take any
amount, however daughter's share of
Rs.11,50,000/- is already paid to the
appellant. She as a guardian and custodian
of the daughter will spend the amount on
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
her education and for her welfare. All
other belongings, ornaments, etc. have
already been distributed between the
parties and nothing remains any longer for
them to resolve.
5. So far as the right of the minor is
concerned, the mother has chosen to give up
the right towards the ancestral properties.
However, this Court has not entered into
the worth of the ancestral properties nor
has it received any certificate of the
learned advocate indicating that this is
actually in the interest of the minor nor
has that aspect been gone into, keeping her
right open once she turns major to question
the compromise vis-a-vis her right in the
ancestral property, the amount which has
been paid for her maintenance has taken
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
note of by way of this order. The decree
passed by the Family Court comes into
effect so far as the Family Suit No.81 of
2017 is concerned, however, that shall be
on account of the compromise that the
dissolution has taken place and not on
account of any cruelty or desertion.
6. On account of the compromise arrived by
and between the parties, First Appeal
No.2166 of 2021 is permitted to be
withdrawn.
7. There is no reference of the visitation
right of the father, who has made an oral
request on a query raised by this Court. He
has been represented by the learned
advocate, Mr.Rutvij Patel. There shall be a
visitation right of the father on a 4th
Sunday of every month. The time shall be
C/FA/2091/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022
mutually worked out by and between the
parties, for which both the sides have
agreed amicably.
8. Both the appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2091 of 2021
In wake of the compromise arrived
between the parties, present application
would not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly.
Ad-interim relief granted earlier
stands vacated, forthwith.
(SONIA GOKANI, J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
M.M.MIRZA
