Jayshree Jayraman vs Sri. Gregory Robert on 15 December, 2010

.  _..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15'"! DAY OF' DECEMBER, 2010

PRES BENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AQITJ. O'OITJAI,"'~VV:  A'

AND _
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE    1.
M.F.A. -  1  
BETWEEN:    A  A A

JAYSHREEJAYRAMAN  '
W/O GREGORY_ROI3ERT' V . _  
D/OVJAYARAM  V    
AGED 42   '     
R/A NO. 29,'I.,$T1:D';MA1N; .18Tf'_1CROSE; '
B.K NAOAR,. YI::~SHvvfANT*HI1IJR  I
BANGAL.ORE-560. Q22.' , '

  I    ...APPELLANT
[By S;~1:-- A MM  ADV.)

AND: _-- ..

~  V' SRI. 'Oi2E.OOI2y ROBERT
K G._J'QHN'~--. _
"A_G'}:3D '4zI."I(EIx.RS 

R/ANO.45;:QASIS/KOTAKKAL HOUSE
BULLET KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,

A . [BEHI'ND"---ADVOCATE RAVEKUMAR HOUSE}
VIDYARANTKA POST, THINDLU

H A   I3AI\:O4ALOREm560 097

... RESPONDENT

  {By Sri: H S CI-IANDRAMOULI, ADV.)
I >!c=i¢*:!==%=
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY

COURT ACT. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREZE
DATED:O5.02.20}O PASSED IN M.C.NO.I58'7/2006 ON THE

 



Eheaiined  the respondentwhusband submits that

 '  regist'.ry, wiithin a week.

   When the matter is taken up, both the appellant
  and respondent filed a compromise petition under Order 23

"Rule 3 of CPC r/w Section }O~A of the Indian Divorce Act,

taking care of the family and was not maintaining thejfainilyvv
properly and as such, she was compelled  .
employment and take care of the needs and  ,o1' 
the family. it appears that there 
between the husband and wife,   
out even after prolonged conciliati:o'n,_  forced

to file the petition, seekirigul:di_ssoli.i;tioh1j~,/Qgfn marriage. The
respondent entered appea.rance   statement of
objections,  Learned trial
Judge having,   in, was of the V16"?
that    to prove that she has
been treated With' h'e11ce, declined to dissolve the
marriage. pp A

 _  E""'iTheA~.pi'espondent «M husband has entered caveat.

he rnay  pelrrnitted to file power. He shall do so, in the

seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the

di.fi'e1*en.ces are so wide they cannot be recompiled. W

 



._  .-.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The jucigme'r1t
and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is set-,,
The marriage between the appellant and the  it

dated 22/2/ 1991 and 17/ 1/ 1993 stands-- .dis:';:o1x{edi  teriifis   it

of the compromise petition filed by b<).th  thxerrif.  

Registry is directed' to drake aVi.:'(ieVe'ree in  of the

Compromise petition filed  the Indian

Divorce Act. H    I  

IUDGE

 .....  

Judge