THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2529 of 2003 Dated:- 04th October, 2010 Between:- Peddi Gopal Reddy and another …Appellants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2529 of 2003 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2002 passed in O.P.No.56 of 2002 by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, the petitioners therein preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case that lead the parties to file the present appeal are as follows:- Initially, both the petitioners, i.e., husband and wife filed a joint application / Compromise Petition before the Court below under Section 13-B and under Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking a decree of divorce and incorporating terms and conditions with regard to the custody of their children and settlement of certain properties. The Judge, Family Court, having regard to the joint application / compromise petition filed by husband and wife, considered their request only in respect of granting divorce and accordingly passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent. However, the Judge, Family Court, had taken objections with regard to certain aspects i.e. settlement of certain properties and custody of the children and observed as follows:- “Hence I am constrained to grant decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved from the date of decree. This Court has jurisdiction under Section 27 of the H.M. Act to decide the property dispute between the couple limited to marriage presents only and not between other members of the family, which could be decided in competent Civil Court of law. As regards the question of guardianship, there is a separate Act governing the same and the parties have to move under the said Act before the Competent Court of Law. Hence the parties are entitled to decree of divorce and nothing else.” 3. Aggrieved by the above observation, present appeal is filed. 4. Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, Learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Court below failed to see that the petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13- B of the Act is akin to the petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. (Compromise Petition) and there can be no objection to incorporate the arrangement arrived between the parties and thus the terms and conditions ought to have been incorporated and made part and parcel of the decree passed by the Court below. It is also submitted that Section 27 of the Act envisages that parties cannot be directed to seek relief from different forums for different reliefs when they have already settled their disputes and entered into an amicable settlement in a comprehensive manner in the same application filed under Section 13-B of the Act. In other words, according to the learned counsel, rejection of such provisions being incorporated in the judgment and decree amounts to not only refusal of exercise of jurisdiction vested on the Courts but, also proliferating the litigation for non reason. 5. In fact, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to see that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. In fact, there is no such bar on the Family Courts to reject such terms of settlement incorporated in the joint application / compromise petition. Unless and until the Court finds that the terms and conditions of settlement are illegal or against the public policy, the Court below ought not have rejected the request of the petitioners for settlement of properties and custody of the children but in fact, ought to have passed a decree and judgment in a comprehensive manner instead of forcing the parties to take recourse of different remedies under different statutes. In fact, Section 26 and 27 of the Act empowers the Family Courts to make arrangements with regard to the custody of the children and also with regard to the joint properties of husband and wife. 6. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Court below committed a serious error in passing the judgment and decree without incorporating the terms and conditions incorporated in the joint application / compromise petition. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and the decree passed by the Court below is modified as under:- 8. The petition filed under Section 13-B and Sections 26 and 27 of the Act by the parties before the Court below stands allowed in terms of compromise entered between the parties and thereby granting a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act and also a decree be passed in terms of the joint application / compromise petition filed by the parties in view of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 04th October, 2010 Bvv