Madras High Court
Edwin Arun vs J.Sathya Suchithra on 23 January, 2015
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A(MD)Nos.1747 of 2008 C.M.A(MD)Nos.1747 and 1748 of 2008 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions Edwin Arun ... Appellant in both appeals Vs. J.Sathya Suchithra ... Respondent in both appeals Appeals filed under Section 55 for orders the Indian Divorce Act, against the fair and final order dated 08.01.2008 made in IDOP.Nos.4 and 44 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Trichy. !For Appellant : Mr.G.Ethirajulu ^For Respondent : Mrs.J.Maria Roseline :COMMON JUDGMENT
IDOP.No.44/2004 was filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights while IDOP.No.4/2004 was filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage. Both the cases were tried by the I Additional District Judge, Trichy. The said Court allowed IDOP.No.44/2003 and rejected IDOP.No.4/2003 by a common order dated 08.01.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the husband filed the present appeals.
2. During the pendency of these appeals, the parties have entered into a compromise memo dated 23.01.2015 to the following effect:-
"1.Amount of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) paid by the respondent today 27.6.2014 for life time maintenance for the two petitioners.
2.Jewels 6+ powns handed over by the respondent to the 1st petitioner.
3.Cot, Bureau, T.V. Vessels and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) handed over to the 1st petitioner by the respondent.
4.Amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) paid by the respondent to the 1st petitioner for the car (gift) given by her to the respondent.
5.The respondent have no objection for the 2nd petitioner in the custody of the 1st petitioner and she shall act as Guardian
6.On the basis of the above settlement, 1st petitioner have no objection to pass order in 2 C.M.A.s pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in favour of the respondent. The C.M.A.(MD) No.1747 of 2008 and C.M.A.(MD) No.1748 of 2008 may be allowed in favour of the respondent.
7.The earlier settlement agreement dated 12.4.2014 as order was scrapped."
3.Both the parties and their respective learned counsels have signed the compromise memo and they also appeared before this Court.
4.In view of the above, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise memo dated 23.01.2015. The compromise memo shall form part of the decree. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
To I Additional District Judge, Trichy.