Allowed

Jerin T.James v. Teen.K.Thomas

Kerala HC19 Oct 2009Mat.Appeal/478/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed husband's appeal to set aside a money decree and dismissed his appeals against divorce decree and rejection of restitution claim, accepting post-judgment settlement agreements filed by both spouses in all three matrimonial matters.

What did the court decide?

Mat.App. No.478 allowed; impugned money decree set aside; Mat.App. Nos.479 & 480 dismissed; divorce and rejection of restitution upheld.

Jerin T.James Vs Teen.K.Thomas — 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

¶3

MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931

¶4

Mat.Appeal.No. 478 of 2009(F)

¶5

---------------------------OP.703/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ....................

¶6

PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶7

¶8

JERIN T.JAMES, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.T.P.JAMESKUTTY, THURUTHIPALLIL HOUSE, PAKKIL-P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

T.P.JAMESKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.PUNNOOSE, THURUTHIPALLIL HOUSE, PAKKIL-P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶11

RESPONDENT : PETITIONER

¶12

¶13

TEENA K.THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.K.T.THOMAS, KAMMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO.479 OF 2009 & MA NO.480 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

BASANT, J.

¶21

These appeals are all preferred mainly by the husband. The relevant respondent is his wife, the 1^st respondent. Mat.Appeal No.478 of 2009 is filed by the husband and his father against a decree for money granted in favour of the respondent/wife on her application. Mat.Appeal No.479 of 2009 is filed by the husband against a decree for divorce granted in favour of the respondent/wife. Mat.Appeal No.480 of 2009 is preferred by the husband against the dismissal of his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. All the impugned orders are passed by the court below in a common judgment rendered by it.

¶22

Parties have been attempting to settle the dispute. They were referred to the mediator. The mediation was not successful. But subsequently parties have on their own come to a harmonious settlement. An agreement entered into between them is produced. The said agreement dated 22.09.09 is duly signed by the spouses in the presence of witnesses. The joint

¶23

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶24

¶25

compromise petitions filed in each appeal are also signed by the spouses and are duly counter signed by their counsel.

¶26

The counsel submit that the decree in O.P.No.703 of 2008 which is assailed in Mat.Appeal No.478 of 2009 has been satisfied and the respondent/wife does not want any further directions. As per the compromise settlement, part of the amount has been paid and the claim for the balance amount has been given up by the wife. In these circumstances, the counsel pray that Mat.Appeal No.478 of 2009 may be allowed and the decree in O.P.No.703 of 2008 may be set aside, the same having been satisfied already to the satisfaction of the respondent.

¶27

The parties accept the divorce granted by the court as per order in O.P.No.224 of 2008. In these circumstances it is prayed that Mat.Appeal No.479 of 2009 may be dismissed upholding the decree for divorce.

¶28

In Mat.Appeal No.480 of 2009, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed and the rejection of the claim for restitution of conjugal rights may be upheld, the parties having settled their disputes.

¶29

The request is accepted. In the result:

¶30

¶31

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶32

a) Mat.Appeal No.478 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned decree for money is set aside as agreed. The compromise petition in I.A.No.2815 of 2009 is allowed. The compromise petition and the agreement annexed shall form part of the appellate decree. The order of attachment passed shall stand vacated. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), which is said to be in court deposit, shall forthwith be released to the 1^st appellant/husband by the court below;

¶33

b) Mat.Appeal No.479 of 2009 is dismissed. The impugned order of divorce is upheld. I.A.No.2861 of 2009 is allowed. The said compromise petition and the agreement annexed shall be appended to this appellate decree;

¶34

c) Mat.Appeal No.480 of 2009 is dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. I.A.No.2862 of 2009 is allowed. The said compromise petition and the agreement annexed shall be appended to this appellate decree;

¶35

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶36

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶37

rtr/-

¶38

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶42

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Mat.Appeal Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2009

¶45

¶46

BASANT, J.

¶47

Both counsel submit that the matter has been settled between the parties. They pray for time to facilitate filing of a joint statement. Request is accepted.

¶48

Call on 22.09.09.

¶49

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶50

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶51

rtr/-

Jerin T.James v. Teen.K.Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerin T.James v. Teen.K.Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Betsy & Another Vs Nil

Punnakkattu Hidayathulla Vs Cherussola Soudath

Asokan Vs Shylaja

Fouzia & Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Kerala & Others

Surumi Vs Ismail

Mathew Joseph Vs Harpreet Anand Kaur