IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD Monday, this the 20th day of September, 2010. F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010 in/and F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 and F.C.A.No.194 of 2005 F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010: Between Saipureddy Balarama Swamy … Petitioner/Appellant and Saipureddy Rajani … Respondent/Respondent F.C.A.No.195 of 2005: Between Saipureddy Balarama Swamy … Appellant/Petitioner and Saipureddy Rajani … Respondent/Respondent F.C.A.No.194 of 2005: Between Saipureddy Balarama Swamy … Appellant/Respondent and Saipureddy Rajani … Respondent/Petitioner THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010 in/and F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 and F.C.A.No.194 of 2005 Oral Common Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife. 2. F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010 is filed seeking to record the terms of compromise specified in the accompanied Compromise Memo. 3. F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 is filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the common order and decree dated 20-10-2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in dismissing O.P.No.26 of 2002 filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of the marriage dated 28-5-1997 between the parties by granting a decree for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4. And, F.C.A.No.194 of 2005 is also filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the common order and decree dated 20-10-2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in allowing O.P.No.612 of 2003 filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. F.C.A.No.195 of 2005: Learned counsel for both the parties represented that the matter has been settled out of Court amicably. Both the parties are present before this Court. Upon being questioned, they stated that they settled the matter out of the Court. 6. During the course of hearing of the matter, both the parties agreed to have a decree for divorce by mutual consent. To that effect, a Compromise Memo has been filed before this Court, which contains the signatures of both the parties as well as their respective counsel. Both the parties identified each other and their signatures also. They were identified by their respective counsel also. Both the parties further stated that they are aware of the consequences of the Compromise Memo. 7. Therefore, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, particularly in the light of the Compromise Memo filed before this Court, the miscellaneous petition F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010 is allowed and consequently, the appeal F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 is allowed. 8. In fact, the marriage between the parties can as well be dissolved by mutual consent also, as indicated in the Compromise Memo. However, since the miscellaneous petition is filed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of C.P.C., the appeal F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 shall stand allowed setting aside the impugned common order and decree insofar as O.P.No.26 of 2002 is concerned and the marriage between the parties stands dissolved and a decree be drafted in terms of the said Compromise Memo. A copy of the Compromise Memo be appended, which shall form part of this common judgment. 9 . F.C.A.No.194 of 2005: In view of the judgment passed in F.C.A.No.195 of 2005, nothing survives for adjudication and no further orders need be passed in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 20th September, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR F.C.A.M.P.No.543 of 2010 in/and F.C.A.No.195 of 2005 and F.C.A.No.194 of 2005 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 20th September, 2010. (Ak)