K.M. PARTHASARATHY Vs. SUBADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by the husband against the dismissal of his petition seeking divorce under Sec. 13(1)(i -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal was admitted on 24.2.1997. When the appeal was posted on 25.3.1997, both parties represent that they have decided to compromise, as suggested by the elders, relatives and well wishers to avoid prolongation of the agony and give a quietus to the litigation, which is pending for the last few years. Accordingly, both parties have filed a memo of compromise duly signed by them and also their counsel on record. Both parties are present in Court today. The memo of compromise sets out the terms and conditions subject to which the parties hereto have agreed to put an end to their relationship as husband and wife by getting dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them, under orders of this Court Though the proceedings before the Court below have been initiated as a contestive litigation, having regard to the subsequent developments and the compromise brought about by the elders, relatives and well wishers, the parties have agreed by mutual consent to present this Memorandum of Compromise to have the marriage between them dissolved. Though normally for a marriage to be dissolved under Sec. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the motion of both parties should have been made to the Court by both parties not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition and not later than 18 months after the said date, having regard to the fact that the parties have been deliberating over the matter all along and in spite of the pendency of the proceedings for nearly two years and more, there was no scope for rapprochement between them, which resulted in the compromise being brought about by elders, relatives and well wishers, we are of the view that this Court can act on the Memo of Compromise filed before us as indicative of a sane and sober thinking after exploring all possible avenues, if any, for bringing about a union to dissolve the marriage, having failed. We have also verified from the appellant - husband as also the respondent -wife in the presence of their respective counts in open Court, who also have represented before us that the Memorandum of Compromise has been filed after great deliberations and consideration of the pros and cons involved in the matter. The terms and conditions, subject to which the parties have agreed to have the dissolution of their marriage make it clear that each one of them has no further subsisting claims over the other.

(2.) Having regard to all these, we are satisfied that a decree for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties hereto on 20.1.1988 has to be passed in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise filed in this Court. Hence, the order of the court below is hereby set aside and there shall be a decree in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise entered into between the parties and filed in this Court. The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the decree. There will no order as to costs.