Smt. Anuradha Baliga vs Sri Vivekananda Baliga

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petition is filed by the wife being aggrieved by the order passed by the Fast Track Court VII, Bangalore on 1.10.2010.

Brief facts of the case are: Crl. Misc 9/2010 was filed by the Petitioner herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Rules i.e., Section 12 r/w Section 18 - 22 and Rule 6(1), which was dealt by the IV Metropolitan Traffic Court, Bangalore. It appears in the said petition, several interim orders were sought and most of them were not granted. Against such refusal, in the appeal filed before the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City which was dealt by the Fast. Track Court Judge VII, Bangalore City, an order came to be passed on 1.10.2010. By the said order, the Fast Track Judge has permitted the Respondent herein to see his daughter - Avani Baliga on every Sunday between 1.00 to 6.00 p.m. and to take her and bring her back between 6.00 and 7.00 p.m. It is against this order, the Petitioner is before this Court.

The Petitioner and the Respondent married about seven years back and due to differences either because of quarrel or incompatibility between them, both of them started marking allegations against each other. During their marital life, Petitioner also gave birth to a child named Avani Baliga, who is now aged six years. In the course of marital relation, both the parties started suspecting the character of each other as well as their relatives which ultimately lead the Petitioner to file a case against the Respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also for harassment u/s 498, IPC. The Respondent also is shown to have taken a decision to seek divorce having felt he could not pull on with the Petitioner any longer and, has also filed al suit before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge, Tumkur. Thus, litigations are pending before the Metropolitan Traffic Court, Bangalore as well as before the Sr. Civil Judge, Tumkur.

Though the main grievance in this petition is, the Fast Track Judge in the appeal filed by herself seeking for an interim order against the Respondent, in stead even without hearing the Petitioner, has passed an interim order granting visiting right to the Respondent to visit his child every Sunday between 1.00 to 6.00 pm.

The parties are present before the Court along with their counsel. The matter is posted for Admission today. The parties were persuaded, even on earlier three occasions, to come to terms of settlement. It appears, this is a love-cum-arranged marriage and the Petitioner and the Respondent have pulled on life together. Differences arose between them since four years. On the suggestions made by the Court, the parties have agreed to put an end to the relation/litigation against proposal and counter proposals.

In this regard, at the outset, the parties have agreed to take divorce subject to conditions i.e., the Petitioner also has agreed to withdraw the cases filled by her before various courts and, the Petitioner also agreed to give divorce i.e., parties have agreed to take divorce by mutual consent and of course, it is once again subject to conditions.

So far as security of the child is concerned, it is agreed, the Respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs in Fixed Deposit in the name of the child - Avani Baliga in any nationalised bank. The Respondent has agreed to part with property measuring 2.00 acres with a farm house of about 700 sq. ft. situate in Sy. No. 29/1 Kannamangaia Village, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, and the property be transferred in the name of the mother of the child, on behalf of the child. Further, it is also agreed the property shall be sold for which both the Petitioner and Respondent shall co-operate.

The deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs is to be out of the sale proceeds after selling the land available as noted above. Out of the sale proceeds, if the agreed amount falls short then, it is for the Respondent to make good the shortfall within three months from today. The excess amount if any, after alienation of the property, shall be given to the Respondent.

It is for the Petitioner to co-operate for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before various courts, against the Respondent. Such withdrawal would be, according to terms, after the deposit of the amount. It is also agreed by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent that the allegations made against each other shall be withdrawn and they Will also withdraw the respective applications. It is further agreed that another MC application for divorce by mutual consent would be filed within two weeks. On such filing of the application, intimation would be sent to the Sr. Civil Judge at Tumkur so that he would close the proceedings pending therein.

In view of the understanding between the parties in terms of the joint memo, this order shall be produced before the concerned courts so that the concerned courts need not proceed with the case until a report is submitted by the parties before the concerned courts regarding deposit of the amount as contemplated under the Settlement. Thereafter, the concerned courts to put an end to the litigation pending therein.

Further, in the event the child intends to see and meet the grandparents or her father at any point of time, the Petitioner has agreed to make required arrangements to meet them. Petitioner has agreed that she will have no claim or right whatsoever in any of the Respondent''s property and on his earnings hereinafter and all claim and right whatsoever has been settled by the mutual settlement before this Court. The joint memo filed by the parties be treated as part and parcel of the order.

Petition is disposed of in terms of the joint settlement.