Shri Javvaji Uma Maheswara Rao @ J … vs Smt Shilpa W/O Javvaji Uma … on 31 January, 2009

Mh'A.N«:3.7018.2GC16 {I:'f.I)

PE'£'i'i'ION r«:u.:::u ms 13 (1) (ia) 6:. 13 (1) (iii;_4v{<+1}'~«._ F:.)R
DEGREE OF ITJIVCJRCE.   

This MFA conaing on for <)1<u1::R:s~"-o.-§jj~V.:1i§§<--q:a;;;;V 2

MANJUNATH J, delivered the folloxgtkigt'-w . A 

auDauEfij "

The above appeal was 'by'u§  'i'12c:A xnzéztfcr was
reserved for Judgment;  thtf  have moved the
court statixig thatthcy   amicably as

suggested   

2.   have filed a joint memo, which
is sig:1c§i«by  and their advocates. The

appellant  nét  the appeal subject to tile:

 «.f{3$I};C:)E:1d¢';'11}t rcpayfi 'tfiéhmouut of Hs.17,0(},0OO/~ spent by

    marriage as marriage expenses. 'f'i:1e

reS}:§c5:i&c§it'.Q'ij:3$ 1':§gzecd to pay the same.

K x V'  ' ficxvabzfiingly, the mspondent has issued four post

.14T4'1.d"at¢d"A'chequcs dated 1.4.2009 for Ks.3,00,()00/-, dated

 f3u;V7.;a<:o9 for Rs. 5,0o,o/- dated 31.12.2009 for

" V.R$.4,(X},(}U0/-- and dated I.},.2{}l{} for R's.S,UO,{)(}G/~--. These

cheques are drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Tata Silk Pam;

Branch in the name of the appellant. Both the paxfies

23'



£'*'1Er'A.1"~i. ?O18.2€UO6 {EC}

submit that thcy have no other claim against caci1'ot.héi'
if the above said cheques are not honomed, 
enfified to claim interest at 24%; 313 on  cf <£.i s¥ 

hcmour of cheque.

4. In View and in terms of  aiemfi, Ljlutivvigznent and
Decree of the trial'  Visi.  thereby
dissolving the   V -».:';;,¢Qa#een than on

24.2.2000

.

.. – ~ « ,2,

Sd/:
Judge

….. Judge