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
