- (1.) Leave granted. The appeal is on the very limited issue of the ratio in which Schedule-I property has been divided between the Appellant (Prithvi Raval) and the Respondent (Aruna Raval) following a decree of divorce between the two. On a petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the instance of the Respondent, the High Court has held the Respondent entitled to 2/3rd share and the Appellant to l/3rd share in the property in question. In course of submissions before this Court the parties agreed to divide the property in the ratio of 60% and 40%; with the larger share of 60% going to the Respondent and the smaller share of 40% to the Appellant.
(2.) Here, it may be noted that the hearing of the case was adjourned to enable Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, to obtain clear instructions from his client.
(3.) Mr. Patil reported to the Court that though he has no written instructions, he was able to speak to the Appellant, Dr. Prithvi Raval, on telephone and he has agreed to this arrangement.;