IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DRARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H, BILLAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE A,S2ACHHAPURE REGUI Fi!3ST APPEAL jQ59 205 C/w, REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO3 115j9j9 In RFA,NoJ599/2005: BETWEEN: Dr. Narayan Gund•ur Alias Kulkarni, S/c Sh.mbu Rao Gundur Alias Kulkarni, Age 56 years, Gee: Dr ENT Spe ialist at Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading England U, K. by special pown.r ef Attorney Holder by Sri Gurunath Thirthabhat, Kabnur, Age: 65 years, Bembay400 001.. APPELLANTv iBi SriA, S. PatH ft ‘r Sri V. U. Ganigeri, Ada J) kND: Sntt dhara Gun dur Alias Kulkarni. W/ o Dr INaravan Gun (1 ur Atlas Kuikarni, Age: 46 years, 6cc: Ii.ousewife, Resident of Shukrava..rpeth Hembhgalli, Dharwad, Gist: Dharwa&58 0 001 RESPONDENT [B SrLS. N. Kind N,SKini: ay Pad A. Sanath Kumar: S. 3. Chouta, Advsi This REA is filed under Grder 41 Rule I read with secton 96 of CPC praying to se.t aside the judgment and dectee dated 28,L2005 passed in O,S,N0J5O/2:002 1D rh I Q 1 L tcc 1 JTht a”d 3 D’ i ctnr’ a a inS—Ian c_u C Rsi000/-. and etc. InJP4Jdc311S 291 0. BETWEEN: Smt Vasundhara, JIa Naravan Cundur Alias Kuikarni, Aizc: 49x.:cars, Resident of Shukravarpcth Ham bhgalli, Dharc : tad, APPELLANT [By SrdRtwi C:, Sthhahit, Adv) AND: Dr. Naravan. Sic Shambu Rao Oundur Alias Kulkarni, Age 59 years, 0cc: Doctor, ENT Specialist at Royal Berkshire. Hosptal, Reading. England. .. RESPONDEtT (By Sri A. S. Patil, Adv.) This RFA is filed under Order Section 96 of CPC praying to modify the judgment an decree dated 28J.2005 passed in OS.No.150/2002 passed by the I AddLCivl Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM, Dhanvad by onhaneing the maintenance to further sum of P5.5000/- pe.r month, aud etc. These Appeals coming on fAr final henring this day, the Court delivered the. following: JUDGMENT Sri iiurunat.h, the sire.ei.al Pcwer of Attorney holder of the appellant. t5mt. Vasunuhara Gundur. the resnond.ent ann the learned Counsel for the parti.es are Pr€weiit [-)e.fere tire. Couyiz 3 The pan ie have flirt] ecrnprnuuct pel irnn nuder 0 ft r MUll Rule 3 of nil I roeedu (ole uNit rinds urn ci. 7hat the Appellurn 011(1 the ReSpOndeIZL in the rzIoee appeals submirs a-s nndet 1 l hat the ipj-cllat inshand irid the € sporick it/ti ift ha’c cmi ‘ably se/id a tize r Lit5Uft 5 tn1’oir’ecl ill (hi ubu’e rii)lJealS 1111(1 r per the terms qf the settlement the appellart ‘hrrsbarid nuder ode o par? at imour I 110 00 00 Ii tie dli y it nour4 a- spondi I i’ifc tOh:’IITCS ;t?€ flit settlement ‘aid a coral ye; rite Respotiderrif mite ;qrees aC’ eJY IN Su U (tITUt’ ti (1,1(1 3 stifle a (3 1. luther N nype vim L hand p am act of — - r rJ-” - 4 1 , (4 ‘, : t( it it: - a I 5 4: (‘4 C’ ( a-s I 1r I,( 0, Olj’ C ‘ i ‘itt”’ ( it 7Ut’ ‘lea eq ‘3’ SI t’5 1 1 to 01 t t ,-r: , ,- s—-i’: c 3. Further both the copellant and respondent oorees (0 ieSE?rce the rUJt of filmq dzcorce netztzon it then intend to do so in future if permissible i.e law. 4. Thai, the respondent/ wije agree for deletion of the chu roe, if any created in respect of the roerties belonginq to the appellant 1 ’ husband in pursL.iance of the execution proceeddigs arisen out of the. present dispute, only after eneashme.nt of the cheques.” 2 Sri. Gurunath. the Soeei.al Power of Attorney holder of the appellant and Smt. Vasundhara Gundur, the respondent, who ate present bef.ore the Court, admit the terms of compromise arid its due execution. I The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the appeals may be disposed of in terms of the 4. The compromise i.s in the best interest of t.he parties and therefore, accepted. 6 5. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.150/2002 stands modified in terms of the compromise. Draw up the decree accordingly. 6. The appellant has handed over three Account Payee post-dated cheques for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in all. The respondent reports the receipt of the three cheques. After the cheques are encashed, the charge, if any, in respect of the properties of the appellant shall be deleted. Refund the permissible court fee. Sd JUDGE Sd/rn JUDGE gab/