CM.A.No.924 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE C.M.A.No.924 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.7428 of 2025 A.E.Sathiyakumar ... Appellant -Vs- Sowmiya ... Respondent PRAYER : Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w.Section 19 of Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2023 made in H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruvallur. For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondent : Ms.Santhi J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.03.2023 made in H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruvallur. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CM.A.No.924 of 2025 2. Before the trial Court, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. By order impugned, the trial Court has passed a judgment and decree granting divorce as prayed for. 4. Despite that the husband has filed this appeal only against the portion of the order at paragraph No.14 wherein the trial Court had directed the appellant / petitioner to return back 26 sovereigns of jewels as claimed by the respondent / wife as she is entitled to receive the jewels. 5. In this context, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, insofar as 19 ½ sovereigns is concerned, which have to be returned back to the respondent / wife as he agreed. Insofar as remaining 6 ½ sovereigns is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant / husband would submit that the jewels are not with him, therefore, to that extent, a small modification if it is there in the order impugned, he would be satisfied. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CM.A.No.924 of 2025 6. However Ms.S.Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / wife would submit that if we look at the order passed by the trial Court, especially at paragraph No.14 of the order, only based on the evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that 19 ½ + 6 ½ totally 26 sovereigns have to be returned back to the respondent / wife. Therefore, that finding is not liable to be interfered with. 7. At one point of time, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent have come for some negotiated settlement in the open Court where both agreed that, apart from 19 ½ sovereigns, if the appellant / husband still part away another 3 sovereigns, that would satisfy the respondent / wife as a full settlement. 8. The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent are taken on record. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this civil miscellaneous appeal to the following effect: (i) that the judgment and decree which is impugned herein is sustained and therefore, it is approved and confirmed. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CM.A.No.924 of 2025 (ii) Insofar as the findings given at paragraph No.14 of the impugned order directing the appellant to return back 26 sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent / wife are concerned, instead of 26 sovereigns, he should return back 23 sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent / wife within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iii) Since this being the order passed by this Court based on the consent and the compromise reached between the parties as indicated above, recording the same, the present order is passed making a small modification in the judgment and decree which is impugned herein. 10. To that extent, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 24.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes /No Speaking Order : Yes/No vji To 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CM.A.No.924 of 2025 1. The learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruvallur. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CM.A.No.924 of 2025 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. vji C.M.A.No.924 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.7428 of 2025 24.04.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis