Karnataka High Court
Family LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Spouses’ compromise fixing permanent alimony and confirming the divorce decree is accepted.

SHWETA vs AMIT

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Spouses’ compromise fixing permanent alimony and confirming the divorce decree is accepted.. SHWETA vs AMIT. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Family Court dissolved the parties’ marriage by decree dated 5 August 2023 and directed the husband to pay the wife ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony.

Source reference: p. 1; p. 3, para. 2

The wife appealed, seeking modification of the decree to grant permanent alimony.

Source reference: p. 1; p. 3, para. 2

During the appeal, the parties filed a compromise.

Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7, paras. 2, 4, 9

They agreed to total permanent alimony of ₹33 lakh, inclusive of the ₹10 lakh awarded by the Family Court; the compromise records a ₹10 lakh demand draft, a further payment of ₹13 lakh by 16 November 2026, and liberty for the wife to withdraw ₹10 lakh deposited before the Trial Court.

Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7, paras. 2, 4, 9

The compromise also addressed the wife’s and children’s future maintenance and property claims, the children’s custody with the wife, and withdrawal of pending cases.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 2
02

Issues

1. Whether the parties’ compromise should be accepted and the appeal disposed of on its terms

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 3–8

2. Whether the wife should be permitted to withdraw the ₹10 lakh deposited by the husband before the Trial Court

Source reference: p. 7, para. 9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Source reference: p. 1

The parties invoked Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in their compromise petition, and referred to Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in its title.

Source reference: p. 2

The High Court did not set out or apply a separate substantive test under those provisions or rely on any precedent; it recorded that the parties understood the compromise, sought its acceptance, and had signed it voluntarily.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 2; p. 6, para. 3
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that both parties and their counsel were present and that the compromise had been read over and explained to the parties in Kannada, which they understood.

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1; p. 6, para. 3

The wife acknowledged receipt of the ₹10 lakh demand draft, and the Court recorded the agreed deadline for payment of the balance.

Source reference: p. 6, paras. 4–5

Having taken the compromise on record, the Court disposed of the appeal in accordance with the parties’ agreement rather than undertaking a separate determination of the merits of the alimony dispute.

Source reference: p. 6, paras. 6–8
05

Holding

The High Court accepted the compromise and disposed of the appeal on its terms.

It directed the Registry to draw the decree accordingly and permitted the wife to withdraw the ₹10 lakh deposited by the husband before the Trial Court.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 7–9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Family Courts Act, 19841

Hindu Marriage Act, 19551

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SHWETAvsAMIT

Karnataka High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment