Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Saritha Reddy v. T. Uday Kumar Reddy .

    M.C.NO.1974/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AND DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for admission.

    2. Learned counsel for the respective parties, in the presence of the parties, all appearing through Video Conference, submit jointly that the parties have decided to reconcile their differences and cohabit or reside together.

    3. In the above background, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent may be permitted to withdraw M.C.No.1974/2009, which was disposed of by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 11th August, 2017. She also submitted that an affidavit has been filed by the respondent husband in that regard.

    4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if M.C.No.1974/2009 is permitted to be withdrawn, then the judgment and decree passed in the said petition may be set aside and the appeal may be disposed of accordingly, as the parties have decided to live together. She also submitted that the appellant has also filed an affidavit in that regard.

    5. Submission of learned counsel for the respective parties is placed on record. The parties also state the same. Their statements are also placed on record. Affidavits are perused by us. Consequently, the respondent husband is permitted to withdraw M.C.No.1974/2009. As a consequence, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.1974/2009 is set aside.

    6. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is needless to observe that the parties shall abide by the settlement that they have arrived at amongst themselves.

    7. Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.1/2017 stands disposed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Saritha Reddy v. T. Uday Kumar Reddy .
    (Dec 4, 2020)