Karnataka High Court
Lt Col T Shiva Kumar S/O Sri Y S Thammaiah vs Smt D Shwetha W/O Lt Col T Shiva Kumar on 3 July, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH CfiUR.T GF KARNATAKA AT GATES THIS "YHE 3% mm' 0% JUL}: zgmé' ' PRESENT I _ THE HO?§'8LE MR..3L§S'E'ICE:'K'LgF~€§N3'L€E§1flff"'H' AND '. % THE H{}N'BLE {V3R3UST§C¥'.:._VC.R..K!jF?i,5gRi5&SVa?;§\»§4§.YVV M.F.A,No.1Qé9s;2a e5 BETWEEN: V Z é A _ % 1 :3' COLTSHIVA KUV!'f21;'3=!§ :f. _ 5,/Q saw :3 <mAm:s¢A:;&H--
AGED"ASQ"E:}"E" 4% "'fEAR;S;
a;;a,':" F_L&TV'E'x:'f.'fL.1'3[2;«.Ti3aRA?C3RE aFF:r;E*R;s* f.':O§$?r€\i'r'~_.
PRGMENABE 'aG;«*2s::.,. FRAZER mwgxs BAMQALQRE :55-.::e'a.:>s%'».~' " _ -' % .fi.PPELE.fi&'*$"E"
{say xg ¥3;§'M;_vBHAT ASSQCEATES ma A?$E'i.Lfi\§'%§'z"} _ 2 '§--3'««fi"'..__'CL'>7 :z.M*azETHA Wm LT cm, T 3;-avg; wmag AGEDABGUT 4% 'vagxas, A .. Va/A':*--@xac:.5g3, E @2055, % 352.9 svszmg, 57;»: smaa '", ' gE§V3i. LfiiYQ%JT : RA3fi»3ESHWAR.i§'a%A§AR T EIWGALQRE 560G§8 -
§;E§?S?«§B§f*é"'§'°' {$33 SM? : §-fE§V§fisi.fi\'§"§r*%,& E'-*'Efi;H£§%-ii ?QR RE$?G%'ei§E§¥§'E' } THIS MFA men W3 19 (3.) or-' THE FAMIé_L${'44'x'f(§liii§;l'SV.ACT AGAINST THE JHJDGMENT AND ORDER ml-_\TE'D--:i'23.§.l20,05 PASSED xxx: MC.NO.€:27/2002 on THE FILECGF we 2.:
Ael:>L.PRL.;1u9GE, FAMILY COURT; ..5ANGAi."CRE;_". DIsMIss':i'NG"= THE EE"rm<m FILED ev THE APPK-'LLA§iT._H-«ER-EI--N"U;'S9"OF¥TH--E HINDU MARRIAGE ACT SEEKING IDEECEREE GE RESTTTU]'§'€3_N OF' "
CONJUGAL RIGHTS AGAINSTTTHE RE$P-ONDENTA'H'ERE3E;N';'a ' THES APPEAL coMIi\zei--E:;:fisi Eo'leier.HE.a:§r2;::§ieV"l'r};1s DAY, MANJUNATH 3, DELIVERED THEjEa>Li_s;kwIlx:iGi:e.tA E The above.appeal_-%s~v;§rfefe'rrecl tliehusband challenging the legaittyfi.'t¥ie""V'orcler passed by the Additieieai_I§riA';1'ei:;a_§vA:'l.Ju:l§e,__ Family Court at Bangelere dt.28""
Septemher 42005'-iré"l§4'.€:;'let.l§';e§27/2002. The abeve said petition was fiiectbythehuébalvfidlllunder sectierz Q of the Hindu Marriage . lfiestviizigtiorl etmfongugal Rights which petition came to be .A'.if:3_.':.'"«;'rEi*.s by the trial court. Challenging the same, the ";1res._erit.lAe'pf3eai is flied. ifhough the petition filed under Sectien 9 of the Hindu ' §§'err§ege Act, the parties have agreed to settle their dispute by "getting their marriage dissolved by filing a censent petition under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Accordingly, they have flied the petition before us, which is parties and their respective Advocates.-I
3. Since the matter is pehdiii1{:;_.sinoe_?'Ei02, case of Restitution of Conjugal yveiiiaf-reiioii the opinion that the present petitien' p_:é..'VvviA'ac:ouhtAA fraud er coersion. Therefore, we VA'bdiv'et5ense with the waiting period of under section 13* B ef the Hindu1i~i.ar§ifi}?2'.Q»e L f
4. At;cofdin'gi:y;i'tt1:e'»eetiti'-13%:hfiieci under sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriaguiesect, Vis__ eiiewed by consent of parties as :_.i-tiie_ pefiies reeAidi«ng....eepareteiy since 1992 while she was Voe;rr§:.iVn'g,A has aise paid a sum cf Rs.3,80,GBO/- by __wey"df"'de{tie'iéod Vdrieft towards the permanent aiimony to the Sirnii"aifi3,.?,' he has; also handed over andther demand draft :__ei'T_'"§2;e§i3;~5Q,00O/- towards the maintenance of the son which ..__"af%rieVi;r2t sheii be depesited by the wife for a period of five years ie the name of the minor son and she is entitied to withdraw the periddicai interest for the maintenance at' the minor. 'i§'2/
5. The wife has acknewiedged the receipt of {we {iemand drafts for Rs.3,.00,000/« and Rs.3,50,000/- respec_tif¢ei.§zVVf.§ji%.iei?ds the permanent alimony of her and towards ma£.eténVat:.L:eefzheru son. Accordingly, the marriage soieri;nizefii'Aijeetwe_en.:tii.e»v..i;§e[;ié.s ' on 26.5.1991 at Bangalore is .iier_eby"diesoived»v'"ii*§§d'ek 13 B sf Hindu Marriage Act.
Judge ' Sd/~..
Judge Ak