SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Chandramma vs Smt. Sarojamma on 4 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

M.F.A.No.2467/2015

BETWEEN

1. SMT.CHANDRAMMA,
W/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT # 91, RAMAKRISHNA
BLOCK, I CROSS, K.S.COLONY,
THYAGARAJANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560 028.

2. MASTER DHEERAJ
S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
R/AT #91, RAMAKRISHNA
BLOCK, I CROSS, K.S.COLONY,
THAYAGARAJANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560028.

3. KUMARI DEEPIKA
D/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
BOTH ARE MINORS, REP.BY N.G.CHANDRAMMA,
R/AT #91, RAMAKRISHNA,
BLOCK, I CROSS, K.S.COLONY,
2

THAYAGARAJANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560028. … APPELLANTS

(By Sri DEEPAK J., ADV.)

AND

SMT.SAROJAMMA,
W/O V.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEAS,
R/AT DODDAKANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
CARMELRAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD,
DODDAKANNALI,
BENGALURU 560 035. … RESPONDENT
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.4.12.2017)

(By Sri UMESH B.N., ADV.)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 47(a) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:6.2.2015 PASSED
IN G WC.NO.56/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING
THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 10 OF THE GUARDIAN WARDS ACT,
1890.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by mother of Late

Venkatesh challenging the judgment and decree passed by

the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru

in G WC No.56/2014 whereunder petition filed by her

under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 to
3

declare and appoint her as guardian of minor children viz.,

Master Dheeraj and Kumari Deepika came to be dismissed

and petition filed by mother and natural guardian

Smt.Sarojamma in GWC No.27/2012 came to be allowed.

2. Today, learned advocates appearing for parties have

filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC

whereunder appellant and respondent have agreed to the

terms set out in the compromise petition. It is stated

thereunder that appellant would not make any claim as

against death benefits/service benefits of her deceased son

Venkatesh and she has no objection for respondent i.e.,

Smt. Sarojamma W/o. Venkatesh to receive death

benefits/service benefits by herself and also on behalf of

her minor children from the employer of deceased viz.,

Central Silk Board. Appellant has also admitted and

acknowledged the order passed in G WC No.27/2012

whereunder Smt. Sarojamma came to be appointed as

guardian of minor wards. Terms agreed to between the

parties under the compromise petition reads as under:

4

“1. That the appellant herein being Grand
Mother of minor wards had filed GWC
56/2014 under Section 10 of the Guardian
Wards Act, 1890 to declare and appoint her as
guardian of Minor Wards Master Dheeraj
Kum. Deepika on the file of the Court of III
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bangalore.

2. Similarly, the respondent herein being
mother of minor children, had filed case in
GWC No.27/2012 on the file of the Court of III
Additional Principal Judge Family Court,
Bangalore, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act seeking to
declare and appoint her as the guardian of
Minor Children Master Dheeraj Kum
Deepika.

3. The Hon’ble Trial Court was pleased to
pass common order in both cases wherein
allowed the petition in GWC 27/2012 filed by
the respondent herein and declared and
appointed as Natural Guardian of Minor
Children Master Dheeraj and Kumari Deepika
and entitled to continue the permanent custody
of minor children further held that the
5

respondent is entitled to get the death benefits
of Late Venkatesh. V, on behalf of the Minor
Children from Central Silk Board.

4. Whereas the petition filed by the appellant
herein in GWC 56/2014 came to be
dismissed.

5. Against the said order of dismissal of the
petition in GWC 56/2014 the appellant herein
has preferred the above appeal challenging the
same.

6. Whereas now at the intervention of well
wishers and friends, the appellant and
respondent herein have arrived at settlement,
and willing to compromise as detailed below
and accordingly, submitting this compromise
petition requesting this Hon’ble Court to record
the same and to pass appropriate orders in
terms of this compromise petition.

7. The appellant declares that she shall not
make any claim as against the death benefits /
service benefits of her son Late Venkatesh. V
and she has no objection for the respondent
(who is none other than wife of Venkatesh. V)
and minor wards to receive the death benefits
6

/service benefits from Central Silk Board and
the appellant acknowledges the order passed in
GWC 27/2012 wherein the respondent has
been appointed as Guardian of Minor Wards.

8. If any anticipated compassionate
Appointment is given by the Central silk Board,
the same shall be sought for only in favour of
the minor ward Master Dheeraj and not in the
name of respondent herein.

9. The appellant and respondent herein
withdraw all the allegations made against each
other.

10. The appellant and respondent herein
affirm and declare that the compromise entered
into in the above case is in their best interest
and also that of the Wards

11. The parties have entered into this
compromise out of their free will and volition
and there is no fcoercision or undue influence.
The parties agree and declare that the terms of
the compromise are fair and just.”

3. Both parties viz., appellant and respondent are

present before Court and they admit the execution of
7

compromise petition and have stated that after having

understood the contents of compromise petition, which

has been read over to them and explained by their

respective learned advocates they have affixed their

signatures without any threat, force or coercion and out of

their own free will and volition they have affixed their

signatures. Parties present before the Court are also

identified by their respective learned advocates who affixed

their signatures to the compromise petition. In that view of

the matter, we are of the view there is no impediment to

accept the said compromise petition.

4. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

JUDGMENT

a. Compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule
3 of CPC is hereby accepted.

b. Appeal stands disposed of. Judgment and
decree passed in GWC No.56/2014 dated
06.02.2015 is substituted in terms as agreed to
between the parties. Registry is directed to
draw the decree accordingly.

8

I.A.1/2015 filed for stay does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE
VP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh