KRISHNAN VENKITESWARAN Vs. SMITHA KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above referred matters are arising out of series of litigations initiated by one Mr. Krishnan Venkiteswaran and one Mrs. Smitha Krishnan, who are husband and wife. Due to strained relationship between the spouses, several litigations and proceedings were initiated by them before the court below and also before this Court and we will now refer those proceedings.

(2.) THE husband approached the Family court, Kozhikode by filing O.P. No. 915/09 under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty, against his wife Smitha Krishnan. The wife has filed M.C. No. 85/09 before the Family court, Kozhikode, for getting maintenance and O.P. No. 125/09 for an order for restitution of conjugal rights from the very same Family court and the said original petition is pending before the Family court. Whereas, O.P. No. 915/09 and M.C. No. 85/09 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 30.11.2009, whereby the learned Judge of the Family court declined the relief sought for by the husband for divorce and M.C. was allowed directing the husband to pay Rs. 4,000/ - and Rs. 1,500/ - respectively to the first and second claimant therein as monthly maintenance allowance from 19.3.2009 onwards. Against the above common judgment in O.P. No. 915/09, the petitioner/husband preferred Mat. A. No. 138/10. The petitioner has also filed R.P.(F.C.) No. 62/10 challenging the order granting maintenance to the wife as per the very same common judgment in M.C. No. 85/09. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below, the respondent/wife and the son preferred R.P. (F.C.) No. 203/10 before this Court. Besides the above civil litigations between the parties, the respondent/wife filed a private complaint against the petitioner/husband, husband's brother and father, upon which cognizance was taken by the court below and instituted C.C. No. 1127/12 pending on the file of court of Judicial First class Magistrate -IV, Kozhikode. The accused therein preferred Crl. M.C. No. 517/13 with a prayer to quash the above proceedings. It appears that the brother of the husband one Mani Venkiteswaran @ Santhosh preferred a private complaint against the respondent herein for defamation, upon which cognizance was taken and instituted C.C. No. 603/10 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Kozhikode. However, the learned Magistrate had disposed of the above calendar case by acquitting the accused therein, by judgment dated 22.5.2012. Against the above order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant therein preferred an appeal before this Court as Crl. A. No. 285/13. While the matters were pending, the petitioner/husband preferred Tr.P.(C) No. 57/10 before this Court with a prayer to transfer O.P. No. 125/09 from the Family court, Kozhikode, to the Family court at Kannur/Thrissur, which is a case instituted at the instance of the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) BOTH the parties and the counsel representing them have submitted that the husband has paid a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/ - to the wife vide D.D. No. 029551 dated 30.1.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, payable at Calicut Government Medical College Branch and as such, the most important condition towards the compromise proposal is complied with. In the joint affidavit filed by them, it is requested to record the compromise entered between the parties and to grant decree for divorce as prayed for. In view of the facts referred above, it can be seen that the relationship between the parties strained much earlier and they were legally fighting each other which culminated with the proceedings before this Court. Now, as recorded above, the parties have settled the entire disputes. If that be so, we are of the view that, Mat. A. No. 138/10 can be allowed granting divorce in terms of the prayer in O.P. No. 915/09 of the Family court, Kozhikode. In a recent decision reported in Smt. Prachi Singh Patil v. Sri. Rahul G Patil ( : 2015(1) Supreme 96), the Honourable Apex Court has observed and held that, the parties pursuing divorce case and trying an amicable solution and after 6 years of efforts, when parties reach an amicable settlement to dissolve their marriage, it should be accepted. Following the above decision, we are of the view that, accepting the settlement arrived between the parties, the divorce as sought for can be granted.