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*锑§’°’
{$33 SM? : §-fE§V§fisi.fi\’§”§r*%,& E’-*’Efi;H£§%-ii ?QR RE$?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”rmLi_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