B S MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this matter was called, learned counsel for the parties filed a joint memo stating that the 1st petitioner who is the husband and the 2nd respondent, the wife have compromised the matter insofar as the maintenance case filed by the wife before the trial Court is concerned and it is also stated in the joint memo that the trial Court has also granted the decree of divorce by its order dated 15.12.10 and the 1st petitioner has also withdrawn the case of bigamy filed by him against the 2nd respondent and others. Apart from these terms, it is also mentioned in the joint memo that, the child Kum. Deeksha is concerned, it is agreed between the 1 st petitioner and the 2nd respondent that Rs.2,50,000/- would be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the child of the couple and the details of the fixed deposit receipts are also mentioned along with the amount in the joint memo.

(2.) THEREFORE, both, the parties pray for compounding of the offence alleged u/Ss. 498-A and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner husband and the 2nd respondent wife are also present before the Court and admit the contents of the joint memo. It is also agreed between them that the 2nd respondent would be entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- out of the fine amount that is deposited by the husband before the trial Court and the said amount would be given to the 2nd respondent within 15 days of the 1 st petitioner receiving the fine amount from the trial Court and for this term is concerned, it is agreed to between the parties before the Court, though it is not mentioned in the joint memo.