HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A. M.P. No. 179 of 2010 in F.C.A. No. 30 of 2008, F.C.A. No. 30 of 2008 and F.C.A. No. 120 of 2008 DATED: 08.04.2010 F.A.C. No. 30 of 2010 Between: Parsa Rajitha .. Appellant/ And Thota Ramakrishna Rao .. Respondent F.C.A.No. 120 of 2008 Between: Thota Ramakrishna Rao .. Appellant and Parsa Rajitha .. Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) As the point involved in these two appeals is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. F.C.A. No.30 of 2008 and F.C.A. No. 120 of 2008 are directed against the order, dated 15.02.2008 passed in F.C.O.P.No. 406 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13(1)(ib) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) for dissolution of the marriage, was allowed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in F.C.O.P. No.406 of 2005. In F.C.O.P. No.406 of 2005, the petitioner-husband was examined as PW1, and his father, who is G.P.A. Holder, was examined as PW2. As the respondent-wife was suffering from incurable disease called schizophrenia, her father, P.Venkata Narasingh Rao, who was appointed as her guardian by the Family Court, Hyderabad, was examined as RW1. In support of her case, RWs.2 and 3 were also examined. The Family Judge, having considered the pleadings and the evidence on record, allowed the F.C.O.P. filed by the petitioner-husband, vide order dated 15.02.2008, and the operative portion of the order is extracted as follows: “In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage that was solemnized between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife on 6th March, 1994 at Munnur Kapu Sangam, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, A.P. according to Hindu religious rites and caste customs, is hereby dissolved, and a decree for divorce is granted in favour of the husband with effect from the date of the order of this Court. The child, Master Amit Kumar, shall continue to be under the care and custody of the parents of the petitioner, and on every Sunday, the respondent’s parents are entitled to take the child to their house and keep the child with them from 09.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and during summer vacations, they are entitled to keep the child during the first half of summer vacation and on the birthday of the child, the child must be sent to the respondent. In case, the petitioner wants to take his son to America, then, till the child completes 12 years of age, he must make arrangements to see that the child is sent to India every year so that respondent can spend time with her son for about 20 days. As divorce is granted to the petitioner, the respondent is entitled to permanent alimony. Taking into consideration the income of the petitioner, as he is earning about $ 60,000 US per annum, he is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. In the alternative, he is directed to pay Rs.15.00 lakhs to the respondent as permanent alimony. With regard to return of articles, return of money, etc. respondent is at liberty to initiate separate proceedings if she is so advised.” Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner-husband filed F.C.A. No.120 of 2008 against the grant of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife or in the alternative a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, and the respondent-wife filed F.C.A. No. 30 of 2008 against the grant of dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of this appeal, the father of the respondent-wife died, as such, her brother is appointed as her guardian, vide orders dated 25.02.2010 passed by this Court in F.C.A.M.P. No.101 of 2010. The petitioner-husband filed F.C.A. No. 120 of 2008 through his G.P.A. Holder, who is none other than his own father. During pendency of this appeal, it is stated that after due deliberations before the elders, and well wishers, the parties have agreed to settle the dispute, and accordingly, the matter has been settled, and both of parties, through the G.P.A. Holder of the petitioner-husband and the guardian of the respondent-wife, have filed a joint application in F.C.A.M.P. No.179 of 2010 seeking permission to convert F.C.O.P. No.406 of 2005 filed under Section 13(1)(ib) and (iii) of the Act into that of one under Section 13(B) of the Act and record compromise by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife by mutual consent subject to the terms and conditions of the compromise as mentioned in the Joint Compromise Memo filed by both the parties. The terms and conditions of the compromise are as follows: a) The husband agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) in lieu of Rs.15.00 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony as awarded by the Family Court. Accordingly, the husband obtained four Demand Drafts bearing Nos.075412, 075413, 075414 & 075415, dated 19.11.2009 for Rs.5.00 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each, drawn on State Bank of India, Prasanth Nagar Branch, Hyderabad-39, and agreed to handover to the wife before this Hon’ble Court at the time of recording compromise. b) That, Master Amith Kumar i.e. the son of the husband and the wife shall be in total care and custody of the husband and his parents. In case the boy is taken to USA, the wife will be at a liberty to visit her son twice in a month as and when the boy is in India. c) It is agreed by the wife that the plot bearing No.778, admeasuring 200 sq. yds. situated at Buddhanagar Colony, Peerzadiguda, near Uppal Depot, Ghatkesar (M), Ranga Reddy District, which was purchased by the husband shall be gifted in favour of her son Master Amith Kumar and the same shall remain in his name till he attains majority and no person will have authority to alienate the same. (the necessary gift deed shall be registered within 7 days from today and will be handed over to the husband before this Hon’ble Court at the time of recording compromise). d) It is further agreed by the husband that Plot No.14 situated at Green Hills Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad which is standing in the name of the wife and was gifted to her by her father, shall be retained by her. e) In lieu of Term (v) of the Order of the Family Court referred to above, it is agreed by the husband to register the Plot admeasuring 200 sq. yds. at Bibinagar, Nalgonda District standing in the name of his father T. Raghava Rao, in favour of the wife (the necessary registered document shall be executed within 7 days from today and will be handed over to the wife before this Hon’ble Court at the time of recording compromise). f) It is agreed by both the parties that all the cases including F.C.A. Nos.30 of 2008 and 120 of 2008 preferred by the wife and the husband respectively against the Order passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in F.C.O.P. No. 406 of 2005, C.R.P. No.3331 of 2007 preferred by the husband before this Hon’ble Court, against the orders of the Family Court in I.A .No.201 of 2007 in F.C.O.P. No.406 of 2005 and M.C. No.36 of 2007 and Crl.M.P.No. 900 of 2007 on the file of the Additional M.S.J. for J.H.C.B.B.-cum-Family Court, Hyderabad, shall be withdrawn by both the parties. g) It is agreed by both the parties that they shall not have any claim against each other either in respect of their life, liberty and their properties. The respondent-wife’s brother, who is her guardian, and the petitioner-husband’s father, who is the G.P.A. Holder, are present before this Court and the learned counsel for both the parties have stated that the terms and conditions of compromise as recorded in the Joint Compromise Memo have been complied with by executing necessary documents and paying the amounts mentioned therein. Accordingly, F.C.A.M.P.No.179 of 2010 is allowed converting the petition in F.C.O.P. No.406 of 2005 filed under Section 13(1)(ib) and (iii) of the Act into that of one under Section 13(B) of the Act and recording the compromise. Consequently, both F.C.A. Nos.30 and 120 of 2008 are disposed of in terms of the conditions of the compromise as enumerated in the Joint Compromise Memo filed along with the application. No costs. The Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the compromise as specified in the Joint Compromise Memo. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. 8th April, 2010 ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. Note: Furnish copy in two weeks B/o bcj