THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.130 of 2008 Date: 26-7-2010 Between D.Naveen Patel … Appellant/Petitioner and D.Sunitha @ Lavanya … Respondent/Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.130 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner (husband). 2. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the husband challenging the order and decree dated 30-11-2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in dismissing F.C.O.P.No.815 of 2005 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1955’) seeking for dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife that took place on 04-5-2003. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court had referred the matter to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and accordingly, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee had conducted the conciliation and a report also has been filed. Notwithstanding the said report and the conditions incorporated therein, a Memorandum of Terms of Compromise has been filed before this Court signed by both the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife is not present. However, the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband are present before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant identified the appellant and in turn, he identified the respondent-wife. The respondent- wife also identified the appellant-husband. Therefore, we do not feel it essential that the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent to record the compromise is necessary. 5. The said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise contained the signatures of both the parties. They identified their respective signatures. Their signatures also were identified by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the versions of the appellant and the respondent, who are present physically before this Court nor do we have any doubt about their identity to the proceedings as wife and husband. 6. As per the Memorandum of Terms of Compromise, the respondent-wife consented for dissolution of the marriage with the appellant-husband unconditionally, along with some other conditions as were incorporated in the said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise. 7. Accordingly, we treat this appeal as the one filed under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 by mutual consent. A copy of Memorandum of Terms of Compromise be appended, which shall form part of this judgment. Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the said Memorandum of Terms of Compromise. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 26th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.130 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 26th July, 2010. (Ak)