THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.M.P.No.2263 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.560 of 2008 C.M.A.M.P.No.2263 of 2009: Between Kadiyala Venugopal … Petitioner/Respondent and Kadiyala Chinni@ Chinnamma … Respondent/Appellant C.M.A.No.560 of 2008: Between Kadiyala Chinni@ Chinnamma … Appellant/Respondent and Kadiyala Venugopal … Respondent/Petitioner THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.M.P.No.2263 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.560 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri C.V.Bhanoji Ramars, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-respondent and Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner. 2. This appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’), is directed against the order and decree, dated 19-12-2006, in H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2000, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district. 3. By the impugned order and decree, the Court below allowed the H.M.O.P., filed by the respondent herein, granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties. 4. The appellant herein is the respondent-wife and the respondent is the petitioner-husband in the H.M.O.P., before the Court below. 5. It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at a compromise and the matter has been settled out of the Court amicably. 6. To that effect, an application C.M.A.M.P.No.2263 of 2009 has been filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the husband, under Order XXIII, Rule 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., duly enclosing Memo of Compromise seeking to record the Compromise Memorandum and to confirm the impugned judgment. 7. The said Memo of Compromise contains the signatures of both the parties as well as their respective Counsel. The parties, who are also present before this Court, identified each other and they are also identified by their respective Counsel. The signatures of the parties on the Memo of Compromise have been identified by each other. Upon enquiry by this Court, the parties stated that they knew the contents of the Memo of Compromise and the consequences thereof. 8. It is further stated by the learned Counsel as well as the parties that as per the terms and conditions of the Memo of Compromise, the appellant-wife is not pressing the appeal and agreeable for the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court. It appears, some permanent alimony also has been paid as agreed in the terms and conditions of the compromise. 9. Therefore, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the factum of compromise and the contents and the terms and conditions set out in the Memo of Compromise. As a consequence to the settlement, the decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granted by the Court below is to be confirmed and accordingly the same stands confirmed. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the Memo of Compromise, the application C.M.A.M.P.No.2263 of 2009 is allowed and consequently and as agreed, the appeal shall stand dismissed in terms of the Memo of Compromise and there shall be a decree in terms of the said Memo of Compromise. No costs. 11. A copy of the Memo of Compromise shall be annexed to this judgment, which shall form part of this judgment. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 21st December, 2009. Ak