IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1569 of 2010 K.Chandrasekar .... Appellant/ Petitioner vs. K.Bhuvaneshwari @ K.Radhika ...Respondent / Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, read with Family Court Act, 1955 made in FCOP.No.2277 of 2005 dated 25.11.2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan For Respondents : Ms.Rukmani JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI,J) This Appeal is preferred against the order of Family Court in FCOP.No.2277 of 2005 whereby the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai has dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant- Husband to declare the marriage as null and void. Unsuccessful husband is the Appellant. 2. When the Appeal came up for admission, stating that the matter is compromised between the parties, onbehalf of the Appellant and Respondent, compromise memo was filed. Today [24.06.2010], both the Appellant/Husband and Respondent/Wife were present in the Court. They were also represented by Mr.Srinath Sridevan, counsel for Appellant and Ms.Rukmani, counsel for Respondent. 3. Both Appellant and Respondent have stated that they have willingly and voluntarily compromised the matter and that they have also understood the terms of compromise. Both parties have agreed that the Appeal may be disposed in terms of the compromise memo. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. While so recording the compromise, Respondent-wife has stated that there is a criminal case [C.C.No.4936/2007] pending on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and that the matter came up on 23.6.2010. She has further submitted that since one of the accused viz., V.Sriram, son of Vaidyanathan has not appeared in Court and the case has been split up and the case against the Respondent, her mother and other family members has been adjourned to 29.06.2010 and the said criminal case is still pending for passing final Judgment. 5. When the Respondent expressed her doubts in the open Court and on being enquired the Appellant, the Appellant made an endorsement in the Memo of Compromise clarifying that Appellant has got no desire or will to proceed with the prosecution of C.C.No.4936 of 2007 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet or any other criminal case either against the Respondent or against her family members or against the said Sriram. Appellant has also made an endorsement to that effect which has been endorsed by the learned counsel for the Appellant also. 6. Memo of compromise filed by both Appellant and Respondent is recorded and the endorsement made by the Appellant on the reverse of the compromise memo [24.06.2010] is also recorded. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Husband is disposed of in terms of memo of compromise. The Memo of Compromise shall form part of the Judgment/Decree. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. bbr To 1. The Presiding Officer The Principal Family Court, Chennai. 2. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai 3. do thro the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Judicial Magistrate Alandur, Chennai 5. do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chengalpattu 1 cc to M/s. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate, Sr. 45783 C.M.A.No.1569 of 2010 BV (CO) kk 26/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/