Madras High Court
M.Vasantha vs S.P.Manoharan on 22 January, 2021
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:22.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.S.A.(MD).No.24 of 2010 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
M.Vasantha Appellant
Vs.
S.P.Manoharan Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and Decree in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001
dated 11.09.2003, on the file of Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, in
and by which the judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 1995 dated
25.08.2000, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli
was confirmed.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.Y.Jagadeesh
JUDGMENT
Today, when the Civil Miscellaenous Second Appeal is
taken up for hearing, it is reported by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
that the issue has been settled between the parties and a joint compromise
memo dated 07.11.2020, has also been filed to that effect by the parties,
which reads as follows:-
"Appellant and respondent submit as follows:-
1.Appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaenous Second
Appeal against the judgment and Decree in
H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001 dated 11.09.2003 passed by the
Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli and the Judgment and
Decree in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 1995 dated 25.08.2000, on
the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The appellant and respondent married on 23.11.1964,
according to Hindu Rites and customs at Parasakthy
Buildings, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction. Out of the
lawful wedlock 2 female children and a male child were
born to the appellant and respondent.
3.The respondent herein who is the petitioner in the lower
Court had filed H.M.O.P.No.28/1995 under Section 13(1)
(11) and (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Lower
Court had come to a conclusion that the ground for
divorce under Section 13(1) (11) had not been proved. But
the lower Court had allowed the petition under Section
13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
4.The appellant filed appeal in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001.
Appellate Court confirmed the lower Court order.
5.Thereafter the appellant filed the present CMSA
challenging the judgment and decree in H.M.C.M.A.No.8
of 2001 dated 11.09.2003.
6.Pending Civil Miscellaenous Second Appeal, Appellant
and respondent had comprehensively settled the issues
between them. They hve reunited now and are living their
life peacefully now.
7.The Appellant and respondent now living together in
appellant's home at Chennai.
8.The appellant and the respondent therefore seek to file
this Joint Compromise Memo before this Hon'ble Court
praying to allow this CMA and thereby set aside the
judgment and Decree in H.M.C.M.A.No.8 of 2001 dated
11.09.2003 passed by the Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli and the judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P.No.
28 of 1995 dated 25.08.2000 on the file of the Sub Court,
Tirunelveli. The Marriage has to be saved accordingly.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
9.It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to record this Compromise Memo; allow the
CMSA and pass such further or other order suitable to the
facts and circumstances of this case and thus render
justice.”
2. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Second
Appeal stands disposed of, in terms of the above compromise memo. The
memo so filed by the counsel for the appellant and respondent shall form
part of the decree. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vrn
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli,
2.Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMSA(MD).No.24 of 2010
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vrn
Judgment made in
C.M.S.A.(MD).No.24 of 2010 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
Dated 22.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
