K PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife whose marriage was held on 27. 10. 1995 and they lived together in the first petitioner's house and due to difference of opinion arose between themselves, they had parted in March, 2002. THEreafter, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the first respondent in Crime No. 30 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 506 (i) r/w 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. THE said complaint was registered in C. C. No. 1064 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur against all the petitioners for the offence stated supra. THE said case is posted to 03. 10. 2007. Before ever the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce in F. C. O. P. No. 2245 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. Pending F. C. O. P. , both the parties desired to settle the matter between themselves. THE terms of settlement between the parties are as follows:

(2.) HEARD the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

(3.) GUIDED by the principles formulated in the above said ruling and considering the special features, which are evident, it is to be held in this case, being a matrimonial one, that the Court is duty bound to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. If a sacred ceremony of a marriage is affected by some skirmishes, which arise between the spouses, and re-union is not possible, and their relationship is irretrievably strained, in case the Court finds that the compromise entered into between them is a genuine one, there is no stumbling block for the Court to entertain the same and in order to avoid future heart-burns between them and take the own course of life without reference to the other after they got separated, it is just and necessary to recognise the settlement entered into between them. Declining to entertain such a request from both the spouses, taking the hyper-technical view and considering the proviso under Section 320 Cr. P. C. , would be counter productive.