Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasavaraj S/O Madivalappa ... vs Sunita W/O Sharanabasavaraj Mirekar on 7 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
MFA No.202152 of 2023
C/W MFA No.202408 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202152 OF 2023 (FC)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202408 OF 2023 (FC)
IN M.F.A. NO.202152 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHARANABASAVARAJ
S/O MADIVALAPPA MIREKAR
AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRI. AND BUSINESS
R/O. NO. BOO2, VIJYAKLEN
Digitally signed
PAUL CHINNAPPA LAYOUT
by VARSHA N 5TH MAIN BIKASIPURA
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH ISRO LAYOUT,
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 061.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUNITA
W/O SHARANABASAVARAJ MIREKAR
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: NA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
MFA No.202152 of 2023
C/W MFA No.202408 of 2023
R/O VANDLI VIA HATTI GOLD MINES
TQ: DEVADURGA
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 115.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHUBHASHCHANDRA D. RATHOD AND
SRI A.D.RATHOD, ADVOCATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM
THE TRIAL COURT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2023, PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, RAICHUR, IN M.C.NO.31/2020, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN M.F.A. NO.202408 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHARANABASAVARAJ
S/O MADIVALAPPA MIREKAR
AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRI. AND BUSINESS
R/O. NO. BOO2, VIJYAKLEN
PAUL CHINNAPPA LAYOUT
5TH MAIN BIKASIPURA
ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUNITA
W/O SHARANABASAVARAJ MIREKAR
D/O BHEMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC: NA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
MFA No.202152 of 2023
C/W MFA No.202408 of 2023
R/O VANDLI VIA HATTI GOLD MINES
TQ: DEVADURGA
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 115.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHUBHASHCHANDRA D. RATHOD AND
SRI A.D.RATHOD, ADVOCATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE TRIAL COURT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2023, PASSED BY PRL.
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, RAICHUR, IN M.C.NO.27/2020 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 13(1) (I-A) & (I-B) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT AND GRANT A DECREE OF DIVORCE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE MFA'S COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Since the issue involved in MFA No.202408/2023 is
similar to that of MFA No.202152/2023, both these
appeals are clubbed together and common judgment is
passed.
2. MFA No.202152/2023 is filed by the husband
challenging the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur in MC No.31/2020,
whereby the petition filed by the wife for restitution of
conjugal right was allowed.
3. MFA No.202408/2023 is also filed by the
husband challenging the order dated 18.03.2023 passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur in MC
No.27/2020 whereby the petition filed by the husband for
divorce has been dismissed.
4. After service of notice in the appeal, the parties
have arrived at a settlement and have filed a compromise
petition under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC.
5. The compromise petition is taken on record. It
reads as follows:
JOINT MEMO
1. That, the petitioner and respondent's marriage
was performed on 15.05.2004 and that they are
blessed with a son by name Vaibhav born on
14.11.2008.
2. That, due to severe differences between the
petitioner and respondent, the respondent had
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
left the company of petitioner prior to 4 years of
filing divorce petition at Prl. Judge Family Court
at Bengaluru in M.C.No.4790/2017 which later on
came to be transferred to the Prl. Judge Family
Court at Raichur and numbered as
M.C.No.27/2020, as per the order in
C.P.No.95/2018 dt.31.01.2020 passed by Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, since the respondent
had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights
in M.C.No.03/2018 on the file of Snr. Civil Judge
Devadurga, which later on stood transferred to
Family Court Raichur, with new number
M.C.No.31/2020.
3. That, both cases were tried separately. The
divorce petition filed by the petitioner in
M.C.No.27/2020 came to be dismissed, whereas
M.C.No.31/2020 filed under section 09 of Hindu
Marriage Act came to be allowed.
4. That, the petitioner has filed
M.F.A.No.202408/2023 challenging the dismissal
of Divorce petition in M.C.No.27/2020 and has
also challenged the allowing of M.C.No.31/2020
filed by respondent / wife under section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act in M.F.A.No.202152/2020,
before this Hon'ble Court and both are pending
for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
5. It is submitted that, petitioner's mother is the
paternal aunt of respondent. That, in the
meanwhile due to intervention of elders and well
wishers of both the families, in view of the long
gap of separation in living between petitioner and
respondent, both petitioner and respondent have
mutually agreed to put an end to their marital
status, agreeing to dissolve the marriage
between them dt.15.05.2004 on certain terms
and conditions agreed between the parties.
6. Accordingly, respondent has received
Rs.07,00,000/- cash from the petitioner towards
her permanent alimony in addition to this the
petitioner's mother has given up her share of
about 14 acres and odd guntas in her father's
property, which is subject matter in
O.S.No.108/2019 pending on the file Sr. Civil
Judge, Devadurga i.e., the partition suit filed by
the petitioner's mother as against her brother,
who is none else the father of respondent.
7. That, the respondent having received the
permanent alimony has agreed not to press the
execution petition in Crl.Misc.255/2023 for
recovery of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month. She has further agreed that she will have
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
no further claim of any sort as against the
petitioner in his property.
8. That, the custody of minor Vaibhav, who is with
petitioner will continue with petitioner at
Bengaluru residence, with liberty to respondent
of visitation right at her convenience on prior
intimation to petitioner. With these terms and
conditions petitioner and respondent have
mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage with
decree of divorce and accordingly, the decree
obtained by the respondent wife in
M.C.No.31/2020 under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act will not survive.
9. That, the terms and conditions agreed upon by
and between petitioner and respondent
mentioned supra are not due to any force or
coercion on one another, by any of the family
members of either of the parties.
10. Therefore, petitioner and respondent humbly
pray to dissolve the marriage dated 15.05.2004
by decree of divorce and pass necessary orders
in both the MFAs, in the interest of justice.
6. The compromise petition is signed by the
parties. The parties are present before the Court. They
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2041-DB
and their signatures are identified by their respective
learned advocates. They state that they have entered into
the settlement out of their volition and without any duress
from anybody.
7. This Court, after satisfying with the terms of the
compromise petition, passed the following order:
a) The appeals are disposed of in terms of the
compromise petition.
b) The compromise petition filed under Order 23
Rule 1 of CPC is ordered to be treated as part
and parcel of this order.
c) The Registry is directed to draw the decree in
terms of the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT:VK
