IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No.131 of 2012 alongwith Cr. Revision No.183 of 2009 Decided on: 16.1.2015 ______________________________________________________ Nishu Kapoor. …Petitioner. Versus Poonam Kapoor. …Respondent. ______________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocae. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Appellant has filed petition under section 13 (1 (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage against the respondent in the Court of District Judge, Kullu. The petition was dismissed by the District Judge, Kullu on 19.12.2011. Petition was admitted on 2.5.2012. 2. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, was appointed as Mediator in this case, being a matrimonial 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 dispute. He submitted the report. The report was accepted by the Court on 7.1.2015. Accordingly, an application under order 23 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed jointly by the parties. According to the conditions, enumerated in the application, being CMP No. 1125 of 2015, the applicant, i.e. petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. Nine lakhs as full and final amount of alimony. The amount of Rs. Nine lakhs has been deposited in the Registry. Respondent has also agreed not to make any further claim after the receipt of Rs. Nine lakhs. 3. The terms and conditions of CMP No. 1125/2015 are accepted by the Court and decree of divorce is granted in favour of the petitioner. The Registry is directed to incorporate the terms and conditions of CMP No. 1125/2015 in the decree of divorce. The appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, so also the pending application(s), if any. 4. Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount without moving any formal application to this Court. Cr. Revision No. 183 of 2009 5. In view of the disposal of FAO No. 131 of 2012 above, Criminal Revision No.183 of 2009 has become 3 infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Vacation Judge. 16.1.2015 *awasthi*