HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.M.P.Nos. 79, 117 AND 120 OF 2010. IN/AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos. 5 AND 6 OF 2007 Dated 2nd March, 2010. BETWEEN P.Balakrishna …… Petitioner/Appellant in all and P. Bhavani ….Respondent/Respondent in all. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.M.P.Nos. 79, 117 AND 120 OF 2010 IN/AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos. 5 AND 6 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Appellant herein is the husband and respondent herein is the wife in both the appeals. The appellant-husband ﬁled FCOP.No. 150 of 2005 under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ﬁle of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, seeking divorce while the respondent- wife ﬁled FCOP.No. 404 of 2005 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the same Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court by a common judgment dated 4.10.2006 dismissed O.P.No. 150 of 2005 ﬁled by the appellant-husband and allowed O.P.No. 404 of 2005 filed by the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband ﬁled FCA No. 5 of 2007 being aggrieved by the dismissal of OP.No. 150 of 2005 ﬁled by him and also ﬁled FCA. No. 6 of 2007 against the order allowing FCOP.No. 404 of 2005 ﬁled by the wife- respondent. The petitioner-husband ﬁled FCAMP.No. 120 of 2010 seeking permission to convert OP.No. 150 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, which was ﬁled under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as that of an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and to dissolve the marriage that took place between the him and respondent on 25.11.200. The present application is ﬁled seeking amendment of provision of law, as stated supra, contending that the petitioner-husband and respondent- wife are withdrawing the allegations made against each other in the respective OPs ﬁled by them before the Court below and decided to dissolve the marriage my mutual consent on the advice of elders and well wishers. It is also contended that even though the Court below allowed OP.No.404 of 2005 ﬁled by the petitioner-wife for restitution of conjugal rights, they are living separately for the last ﬁve years and the petitioner-wife is not taking any steps for enforcement of the order passed in her favour in the said OP inasmuch as both have agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the said petition, it is also stated that the respondent-wife gave an undertaking that she will withdraw the criminal complaint ﬁled against the petitioner-husband in C.C.No. 819 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Additional Judicial Fact Class Magistrate, Warangal. Since the respondent-wife did not oppose the petition for amendment of provision of law and both have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, the application in FCAMP.No. 120 of 2010 is ordered as prayed for. The petitioner-husband also ﬁled FCAMP.Nos. 117 of 2010 and 79 of 2010 in FCA.Nos. 5 and 6 of 2007 respectively seeking to treat the petition ﬁled by the appellant-husband in O.P. No. 150 of 2005 under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act as a petition ﬁled under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and consequently pass a decree of divorce in FCA.No. 6 of 2007 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of mutual consent. Along with both the petitions, the petitioner also ﬁled Memorandum of Compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. As stated supra, in the present petitions also, he averred that though OP.No.404 of 2005 ﬁled by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed, the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife are living separately and the respondent-wife has not taken any steps for execution of the order in OP.No. 404 of 2005, which is also admitted to by the respondent-wife. It is further stated that the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife have amicably settled the disputes among them in terms of compromise in the presence of their elders and well-wishers, and, arrived at a compromise. As per the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner-husband had paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) through Demand Draft No. 682505, dated 16.2.2010 drawn in the name of their minor son, Master Jaya Surya, and handed over the same to the respondent-wife, who shall deposit the same in F.D.R. in any nationalized Bank in the name of Master Jaya Sura till he attains majority. The respondent-wife is entitled to receive the interest accrued there on periodically, to bear the expenditures of the minor. However, it is needless to observe that the minor child, Master Jaya Surya is entitled to share in the properties of his father, i.e. petitioner-husband. Further the petitioner-husband also paid Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh ﬁfty thousand only) through Demand Draft No. 682516, dated 26.2.2010 drawn in favour of the respondent-wife in full and ﬁnal settlement of her claims along with her permanent alimony and the same was received by the respondent-wife, without there being any objection. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties as stated supra, FCAMP.Nos. 117 of 2010 and 79 of 2010 are ordered as prayed for. In that view of the matter, F.C.A.No. 5 of 2007 ﬁled against O.P.No. 150 of 2005 by the appellant-husband for grant of decree of divorce is allowed and F.C.A.No. 6 of 2007, which is also ﬁled by the appellant-husband against OP.No. 404 of 2005 ﬁled by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights, has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Registry is directed to draw a decree of divorce in terms of the compromise as above. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE B.N.RAO NAL Dated 2nd March, 2010. Msnr.