C.V.N. Sri Hari v. D. Satya Surya Madhuri

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon'ble Smt. Justice T.Rajani Family Court Appeal Nos.68 & 156 of 2016 Date: 02.03.2017 Between:

CVN.Sri Hari ... Appellant and D.Satya Surya Madhuri

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr.Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent: Mr.Duvvuri Suryanarayana The Court made the following:

Common Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) Family Court Appeal Nos.68 and 156 of 2016 arise out of Common Order, dated 19-01-2016, in OP.Nos.709 of 2009 and 669 of 2010 respectively on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

The respondent has filed FCOP.No.709 of 2009 for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant. The appellant has filed FCOP.No.669 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights. Following the joint trial of both the FCOPs, the Family Court has dismissed FCOP.No.669 of 2010 and decreed FCOP.No.709 of 2009. Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order, the unsuccessful husband filed these two Appeals. During the hearing of these Appeals, this Court has initiated conciliation between both parties. After prolonged discussion with them, we were able to persuade them to settle the dispute amicably. As per the understanding reached between the parties, the appellant has agreed not to press the Appeals filed by him subject to himself and the respondent exchanging the jewellery belonging to each other.

Today at the hearing, the appellant is personally present besides the Advocates representing both parties since on the previous occasion i.e., on 23-02-2017, the respondent has sought for leave of her absence and the Court has, accordingly, granted the leave as requested by her.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent has returned all the jewellery, which she has received from him at the time of their marriage. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also agreed that the appellant has returned the gold, which he has received from the respondent's parents at the time of the marriage. The appellant has represented that certain findings rendered by the lower Court adversely reflect on his character and that they may affect his future prospects pertaining to his career.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has fairly agreed that the adverse observations made by the lower Court on the character of the appellant may be expunged.

In view of the above, all the adverse observations made by the lower Court regarding the character of the appellant stand expunged.

The appellant has submitted that in the light of the above facts, the Appeals may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed as not pressed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Appeals, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) ___________ (T.Rajani, J) Dt: 2nd March, 2017 lur