Allowed

K.R.Anil Kumar v. Suntha Thampi

Kerala HC14 Oct 2009Mat.Appeal/182/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a joint compromise petition filed by the spouses during the pendency of matrimonial appeals. The Court waived the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, allowed the prayer for divorce by mutual consent, and passed a decree dissolving the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B was granted with the six-month waiting period waived.

K.R.Anil Kumar Vs Suntha Thampi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931

¶3

Mat.Appeal.No. 182 of 2006() ---------------------------OP.1689/2003 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM ....................

¶4

PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER

¶5

------------------------------------------K.R.ANIL KUMAR, S/O. K.RAVINDRAN NAIR, EMPLOYED AS MANAGER, REEFSIDE P.B.NO.2066, ORCHID MAGEE MALE, REPUBLIC OF MALDIVES, NOW REP. BY HIS FATHER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KALLUVARAMBATHU VEEDU,T.C.50/ 603 (5) KALADY, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 & 2

¶8

¶9

SUNITHA THAMPI, W/O.ANIL KUMAR, KALLUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, T.C.50/603 (5) KALADY, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

MALAVIKA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER- DO-DO.

¶11

ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.ABUL HASSAN[CONCILIATOR] SMT.LEKHA SURESH[CONCILIATOR]

¶12

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶13

ON 14/10/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO. 208 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.

¶15

-----------------------------------------------------Mat. Appeal Nos.182 & 208 of 2006 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2009

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Basant,J.

¶18

These appeals have been filed by the appellant/husband/ father aggrieved by a common order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.(HMA)No.1603/03 and O.P.No.1689/03. There was yet another O.P. also disposed of by the impugned common order. But the parties have not chosen to appeal against that part of the common order.

¶19

Mat. Appeal No.208/06 arises from O.P.(HMA) No.1603/03. In that O.P. the appellant/husband had prayed for a decree for dissolution of marriage under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. That petition was dismissed by the Family Court.

¶20

Mat. Appeal Nos.182 & 208 of 2006

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

The wife of the child had filed O.P.No.1689/03 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, claiming amounts from the appellant. An order of injunction was also claimed. By the impugned order, an injunction was granted as prayed for and the claim for maintenance of the child was allowed and the appellant/husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/per mensem to the 2^nd claimant/the petitioner/child.

¶23

During the pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled all their outstanding disputes. They submit that these appeals can now be allowed and the impugned orders can be set aside. It is further submitted that the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes and they have agreed that the marital tie between them can be dissolved by an order of divorce by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel pray that the said prayer under Sec.13B may be allowed, the period of six months insisted by Sec.13B(2) may be waived and these appeals may accordingly be allowed.

¶24

We are satisfied that the compromise between the parties can be accepted. A joint compromise petition is filed as I.A.No.2957/09 in Mat. Appeal No.208/06. The said joint compromise petition is filed by the spouses and the same is duly

¶25

Mat. Appeal Nos.182 & 208 of 2006

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

countersigned by their respective counsel. In I.A.No.2955/09 a decree for dissolution of marriage under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is prayed and in I.A.No.2956/08 it is prayed that the period of six months prescribed under Sec.13B(2) may be waived.

¶28

We are satisfied that the compromise petition can be accepted. We are satisfied that the impugned orders can be set aside as prayed by both sides. We are further satisfied that the parties have been residing separately for a period of exceeding two years; that they have decided that they cannot continue joint residence and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage between them can be dissolved by mutual consent. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the prayer under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be allowed. We further agree that the period of six months under Sec.13B(2) to make a further

¶29

motion can also be waived in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case invoking our inherent jurisdiction.

¶30

In the result:

¶31

(a) Mat. Appeal No.182/03 is allow ed and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety.

¶32

(b) Mat. Appeal No.208/03 is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

¶33

Mat. Appeal Nos.182 & 208 of 2006

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

¶36

judgment.

¶37

(d) I.A.No.2955/09 is allowed. I.A.No.2956/09 is also allowed. The period of six months under Sec.13B(2) is dispensed with and a decree for divorce by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is passed and the marriage between the spouses which was solemnised as per the customary rites on 5/11/1995 is hereby dissolved.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/M.C. HARI RANI (Judge)

Nan/

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

Mat. Appeal Nos.182 & 208 of 2006

¶44

-: 5 :-

K.R.Anil Kumar v. Suntha Thampi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Anil Kumar v. Suntha Thampi

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

C.P.Abdul Kareem Vs Fathima

Muhammed Shafi Vs Nadiya

Shajil Kumar Vs Anitha

Abdul Salam Vs Seenath

Abu Haji Vs Kadeeja

Kandoth Chalil Smitha Vs Mulloli Shayi