Allowed

Anitha v. Aravindakshan Kurupath

Kerala HC3 Nov 2008WP(C)/18944/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed to expedite disposal of a Family Court divorce case. Upon finding that parties had settled all disputes via mutual consent, the Court granted an immediate divorce decree, allocated maintenance, decided child custody, and struck off related Family Court cases.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce granted with immediate effect; maintenance fixed; custody awarded to mother; Family Court cases struck off and quashed.

Anitha Vs Aravindakshan Kurupath — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶3

WP(C).No. 18944 of 2008(S)

¶4

-------------------------OP.1460/2006 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ....................

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

ANITHA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. GOVINDAN NAIR,PUTHUSSERY HOUSE PO MANNENGODE, VIA PULASSERY (DIST) PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT 9D ,DD VASTRAMAHAL, MARKET ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶9

ARAVINDAKSHAN KURUPATH,AGED 41 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, KURUPPATH EAST HOUSE PO PERUMANNOOR, VIA CHALISSERY, DIST PALAKKAD NOW AT KUWAIT (MISTUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP.P.B. NO 2707 SALMIYA,22038 KUWAIT)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C)NO.18994/2008

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶15

Ext.P1: True copy of O.P.(FC) 1460/2006 of the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶16

Ext.P2: True copy of the news item in the Kuwait Times.

¶17

Ext.P3: True copy of written statement filed by the respondent in O.P.(FC) 1460/2006.

¶18

Ext.P4: True copy of I.A. No.328/2008 in O.P.(FC) 1460/2006.

¶19

Ext.P5: True copy of objection filed by the respondent in I.A. No.328/2008.

¶20

Ext.P6: True copy of reply statement filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.328/2008.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶22

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶23

W.P.(C) NO. 18944 OF 2008

¶24

Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶27

The writ petitioner is the petitioner in O.P. (FC) No.1460 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. She is also the petitioner in M.C. No.368 of 2006 pending before the same court. This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 petition before the commencement of trial in Ext.P1 petition.

¶28

When the matter was taken up for final hearing, we directed the parties to appear before us in person. Accordingly, the parties appeared on more than one occasion. We interacted with the parties on all such occasions. We are happy to note that the parties have settled all the disputes between them. As part of the settlement, the respondent/husband conveyed his one-half right over the property with a residential building bearing No.40/7669-P3 9D DD Vasthramahal situated in Survey Nos.660/1 and 659/3 of Ernakulam Village. He also graciously agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- each per month towards maintenance to his two children.

¶29

W.P.(C)NO.18944/2008

¶30

¶31

The said amount shall be deposited by the respondent in the account of his children, Abhirami Aravind, Account No. 0021-00560225-190001 and Arundhathi Aravind, Account No. 0021-00560227-19001. The respondent/husband has also undertaken to pay the balance instalments due to the H.D.F.C. bank towards the loan availed by him in respect of the aforesaid flat. The petitioner is at liberty to seek return of documents produced in the bank in connection with the loan arrangement. The parties have also filed I.A. No.13903 of 2008 under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. We are satisfied that the said application is filed on their on accord and there is no collusion between the parties in filing the said application. We are also satisfied that the relationship between the parties as husband and wife has irretrievably broken long back and there is no chance for a reunion. We, therefore, feel that there is no necessity to keep the petition pending till the expiry of the statutory period and hence we waive the lie over period.

¶32

Accordingly, a decree is passed dissolving the marriage between the parties with effect from today. The parties have also filed a compromise petition stipulating the terms of compromise. The terms of compromise are recorded and they shall form part of the decree. The monthly maintenance agreed to be paid shall continue until further orders. If any modification is required due to change of circumstances, the parties

¶33

W.P.(C)NO.18944/2008

¶34

¶35

are at liberty to approach this Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no necessity to continue the cases, namely, O.P. (FC) No.1460 of 2006 and M.C. No.368 of 2006 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P. (FC) No.1460 of 2006 is struck off from the file of that court and M.C. No.368 of 2006 is quashed.

¶36

It is also agreed between the parties that custody of the children shall be with the petitioner/mother. The respondent/father is at liberty to take the children to his parental house in connection with any important functions accompanied by the petitioner/mother.

¶37

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

(KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE

¶39

(HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE

sp/

W.P.(C)NO.18944/2008

KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶44

W.P.(C) NO. 18944/2008

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

3rd November, 2008

¶47

W.P.(C)NO.18944/2008 5

Anitha v. Aravindakshan Kurupath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha v. Aravindakshan Kurupath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apple New Cochin Allottees Association Vs Apple a Day Properties Pvt. Ltd.

P.K.Abdulla Vs M/S.New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Meena.T Vs Indukesh Babu .M.v