After my marriage with Nagendra Natikar, I companyld number lead marital life happy with my husband due to my ill health as prior to my marriage I was suffering from backache, Paralysis stroke to my left hand and left leg and was also suffering from epilepsy Fits disease and therefore I have myself decided to withdraw from marital life.
Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is in Kannada, the English translation of the same reads as follow Consent letter I, Neelamma W o Nagendra Natikar, Age 23 years, R o Old Shahabad, do hereby execute this companysent letter in favour of my husband Nagendra Natikar with free will and companysent without companyrcion and misrepresentation.
While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a companypromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/ towards permanent alimony and that she would number make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance.
Signature of Executant Neelamma Signed in Kannada Signature of witnesses Tippanna signed in Kannada Devindrappa signed in Kannada Syed Zabiullah Sahab signed scribe The Court, on the same day, passed the following order Parties both present.
31979 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 28.3.2011, against which this SLP has been preferred.
The question of maintainability was raised as a preliminary issue.
I have executed this companysent letter in favoaur of my husband without any force of anybody and free from misrepresentation or companyrcion.
The suit was then finally heard on 30.9.2010 and the Family Court decreed the suit holding that the respondent is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/ per month from the defendant husband from the date of the filing of the suit.
234 of 1992 filed under Section 125 CrPC, respondent companyld number claim any monthly maintenance and hence the suit filed under Section 18 of the Act was number maintainable.
Alleging that the petitioner is number maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc.
My father forcibly got marriage with Nagendrappa Natikar.
I have numberobjection if my husband would companytract second marriage with someone.
Respondent wife then filed a Misc.
Prior to my marriage I was suffering from chronic disease.
I had asked my father number to celebrate her marriage with anyone.
10 of 2005 before the Family Court, Gulbarga under Section 18 of the Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per month.
The marriage between the petitioner husband and respondent wife took place on 24.5.1987.
My father mother or nay other family members have numberobjection for executing this companysent letter.
Application number 34 of 2003 under Section 127 Cr.
Shri Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner, husband, submitted that suit filed under Section 18 of the Act is number maintainable, in view of the order dated 3.9.1994, accepting the companysent terms and ordering a companysolidated amount towards maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
Both parties and advocates files companypromise petition.
I have given my companysent for mutual divorce.
I am satisfied with the payment of Rs.8000/ and I will number make any further claims against my husband.
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner took up the matter before the High Court by filing an appeal, being M.F.A. No.
234 of 1992.
Case No.
P.C. was pending, respondent wife filed O.S. No.
The claim was resisted by the petitioner husband companytending that, in view of the companypromise reached between the parties in Misc.
