The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw his matrimonial appeal challenging a custody order. The Court found no purpose in continuing the appeal as a related appeal was withdrawn on consent, and the dispute did not depend on the maternal grandmother's presence.
Appellant permitted to withdraw the appeal without leave to sue on the same cause of action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933
Mat.Appeal.No. 642 of 2009() ----------------------------------OP.446/2005 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT
------------------------------------
SUNIL V, ADVOCATE, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNATHU HOUSE P.O., VADAKKUTHALA EAST, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.K.N.RAVEENDRAN SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SRI.K.THAVAMONY SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR
RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ANITHA PILLAI, W/O. K.P. GOPINAHTA PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALPAKAM, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
2. RASHMI PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, SREE PARAMESWARA FULES, P.O. VADAKKUMTHALA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC R2 BY SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
ORDER ON I.A. NOS.2317/2009 & 3444/2009
IN M.A. NO.642/2009
DISMISSED
19/07/2011
SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
svs
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
N.K.Balakrishnan, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.642 of 2009-B
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Today, we have permitted the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.933 of 2009 to withdraw that appeal. That was an appeal from a divorce proceedings. There, we have recorded an interlocutory application wherein both parties had under their signatures stated before Court in writing that they have settled their disputes.
This appeal, namely, Mat. Appeal No.642 of 2009 is by the husband. He is challenging a custody and guardianship order. Though the original petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the maternal grand mother of the children, the Family Court granted interim custody orders and
MA642/09 -: 2 :-
final arrangement orders only as between the husband and wife, i.e., the parents. Having regard to the fact that Mat.Appeal No.933 of 2009 stands withdrawn on consent, we find no purpose to continue with this Mat. Appeal which is essentially one built on the rival claims of the parents of the children. We do not have to wait for the availability of the maternal grand mother of the child in India for settling this dispute since the appeal does not revolve around any claim by or against her. We, therefore, allow the appellant to withdraw this appeal also without leave to sue on the same cause of action.
Sd/Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.
Sd/N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge.
Sha/2307
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent-appellant can withdraw the matrimonial appeal given the withdrawal of a related appeal on consent.
SUNIL V
ANITHA PILLAI
RASHMI PILLAI
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
