VISALAKSHI Vs. SHIVARAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in the above appeal who is the petitioner in the two Miscellaneous Petitions is the wife of the respondent.

(2.) They were married on 17-6-1982 and fell out in 1986 and thereafter they have been residing separately. In June 1986, both parties together filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of divorce based on their consent. The case was adjourned for the statutory period of six months at the end of which the wife resiled from the consent and the petition was dismissed. In 1987 the husband filed O.P. 32 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg seeking decree of divorce under S.13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia), that is, on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The petition was resisted by the wife, but was allowed by learned Subordinate Judge on the ground of adultery under S.13(1)(i) of the Act. The ground of cruelty urged was negatived. The decree for divorce was passed on 30-1-1988. That decree is challenged by the wife in the appeal filed on 14-3-1988. The appeal has been pending before us for over three years. On 2-4-1991 the parties filed CMP 1829 of 1991 under O.23 R.3 C.P.C. submitting that they have entered into a settlement and the appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise and OP 32 of 1987 is dismissed. The compromise petition states that in full satisfaction of all the marital claims of the wife and all claims arising in relation to the decree of divorce and towards the future maintenance of their minor child, the wife has already received a cheque for Rs.23,000/- issued by the husband and drawn on the Hosdurg Service Cooperative Bank on 20-3-1991. Learned counsel representing the wife submits that the cheque has already been encashed in pursuance of the compromise. Parties have also filed CMP 1830 of 1991 under S.13B of the Act stating that they have been residing separately since June 1986, that it has become impossible for them to reunite and live as husband and wife and they agree for a decree for divorce being passed in terms of S.13B of the Act. They also state that due provision has already been made for the claims of the wife in connection with the marriage.

(3.) Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by the parties before the Trial Court and before us, we are satisfied that the compromise petition and the petition under S.13B of the Act filed before us are the result of voluntary consent of both the parties and such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence and also that there is no collusion between the parties.