- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102 OF 2023 (MC) BETWEEN: RAVIKUMAR M S/O MUNISWAMY R, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.135, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE HEELALIGE, CHANDAPURA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 099. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.J ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.MANASA T W/O RAVIKUMAR M AND D/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.121, MANASA NILAYA HEELALIGE MAIN ROAD, CHANDAPURA POST ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED IN MC NO.5049/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(ia)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) 1. Appellant and respondent are present before the Court along with their counsels. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Appellant and respondent have filed a Compromise petition dated 19.05.2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC read with Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The compromise petition reads as under: The appellant and the respondent submit as follows: 1. The appellant has filed the above appeal against the dismissal of his petition in MC No.5049/2020 dated 23.9.2022 by the trial court which is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife respectively and their marriage had been performed on 21.3.2016 as per Hindu Customary Rites. The respondent had refused to cohabit with the appellant and since 15.10.2016 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 both the parties have been living separately and independently without having any relationship what-so-ever between them for the past nearly ten long years. 2. During the pendency of the above appeal due to the intervention of their respective parents and the elders in the family, both the parties have resolved their differences and mutually agreed and conceded to dissolve their marriage. The respondent herein has agreed to have no objection to allow the petition filed by the appellant before the trial court in MC No.5049/2020 seeking dissolution of their marriage. The respondent admits that due to the long standing pendency of the proceedings they have been living separately and independently and away from each other. She also admits that there are no issues in the wedlock. Under these circumstances both the parties have filed this compromise petition conceding for dissolution of their marriage on the following terms and conditions: a) The respondent has agreed to receive the sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from the appellant towards one time settlement of her permanent alimony and that she shall not have any further claim against the appellant under any circumstances in future. (b) The appellant has paid the said agreed sum of Rs.25 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the respondent through Demand Draft No.000751 dated 29.4.2026 issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., Bengaluru towards one time settlement of her permanent alimony. (c) The respondent admits and acknowledges the receipt of the said sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from the appellant before this Hon'ble Court towards her permanent alimony as one time settlement payment and that she shall not have any further claim against the appellant in future under any circumstances. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 (d) Both the parties have exchanged their respective movables and other valuables and there is no further claim what-so-ever against each other. (e) There is no collusion or coercion or undue influence by any of the parties for agreeing this compromise and both the parties have voluntarily and on their own volition have agreed and conceded for this compromise. (f) The respondent concedes for allowing the petition filed by the appellant before the trial court in MC No. 5049/2020 seeking dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. (g) Both the parties have agreed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings. Wherefore, the appellant and the respondent pray for the following reliefs: (i) Allow the above appeal filed by the appellant and thereby set aside the impugned judgement & decree dated 23.9.2022 passed by the learned III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sit at Anekal in MC No.5049/2020. (ii) Pass a judgement & decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent which was performed on 21.3.2016 at KNT Kalyana Mantapa, Chandapura, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District as prayed in the petition filed by the appellant in MC No. 5049/2020. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 4. Compromise Petition dated 19.05.2026 is taken on record. 5. Both the parties have agreed to the terms of the compromise petition. 6. The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- through demand draft and the respondent acknowledges receipt of the same as per compromise petition. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the terms of the Compromise Petition, the following order is passed: i) The impugned Judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in MC No.5049/2020 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal is set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24819-DB MFA No. 102 of 2023 ii) The marriage between the appellant and respondent solemnized on 21.03.2016 is hereby dissolved. iii) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo. iv) No order as to costs. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1