Allowed

Abdul Jaseem & Others v. Samama

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009Mat.Appeal/875/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a matrimonial appeal against a Family Court decree for maintenance and return of gold. The parties filed a joint compromise petition, which the Court allowed, set aside the decree, and recorded that the settlement does not affect the child's right to claim maintenance or modification of custody.

What did the court decide?

Compromise petition allowed; appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; settlement recorded as not affecting child's rights to maintenance or custody.

Abdul Jaseem & Others Vs Samama — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 875 of 2008()

¶6

---------------------------APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶7

------------------------------------1. ABDUL JASEEM, S/O.K.M.UMMAR, AKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 533. NOW EMPLOYED AND RESIDING AT AL-OTALBA P.O.BOX 70610, ABU DHABI, U.A.E. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.M.UMMAR.

¶8

K.M.UMMAR, AKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 533.

¶9

LAILA UMMAR, W/O.K.M.UMMAR, AKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN - 685 533.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶11

RESPONDENT: PETITIONER

¶12

------------------------SAMARNA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O.M.P.SALIM, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, BIRLA COLONY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶14

SMT.P.V.PARVATHY REENA THOMAS RAM MOHAN L.

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER ON IA.3406/08 IN MAT.A.875/08

¶17

//DISMISSED//

¶18

21.10.09 SD/ R.BASANT, JUDGE. SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE

¶19

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

¶20

--------------------------------------------------

¶21

Mat.Appeal No.875 OF 2008

¶22

----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Basant, J.

¶25

This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Family Court directing them to pay a total amount of Rs.6,02,000/- along with interest on the principal amount of Rs.6 lakhs. This direction has been issued after giving due credit for the counter claim raised for return of 64 grams of gold ornaments.

¶26

The matter has been pending before this Court. The parties now report that they have settled all their outstanding disputes. A joint compromise petition has been filed as I.A.No.3027/2009. The counsel pray that the said joint compromise petition may be allowed, this appeal may be allowed and the impugned decree may be set aside recording the fact that all claims and counter claims have been settled and satisfied. Both counsel submit that it may be clarified that this compromise shall not affect the rights of the parties regarding custody of the child or the right of the child to claim maintenance.

¶27

We have gone through the compromise statement. We are

¶28

Mat.A.No.875/08

¶29

-2-

¶30

satisfied that the same can be accepted and I.A.No.3027/09 can be allowed.

¶31

In the result:

¶32

(a) I.A.No.3027/09 is allowed. The said joint compromise petition shall be annexed to the appellate decree.

¶33

(b) The Mat.Appeal is allowed.

¶34

(c) The impugned order is set aside. It is recorded that the claims and counter claims raised in O.P.No.629/07 have been settled and satisfied.

¶35

(d) It is made clear that this settlement shall not affect the rights of the child now in the custody of the respondent to claim maintenance or the right of the first appellant to claim custody in respect of the child. Appropriate contentions can be raised and appropriate decisions of the court solicited on those aspects by the parties.

¶36

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

¶37

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶38

dsn

Abdul Jaseem & Others v. Samama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jaseem & Others v. Samama

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

T.K.Saithalavi Haji Vs Sulaikha

Anoop Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rajamma Vs Superintendent of Police

Nabeesa Beevi Vs Shanifa @ Shania and Another

Sindhu K. Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala