Karnataka High Court
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