Disposed

Roy Cherian v. Ancy Augustine

Kerala HC10 Sept 2012Mat.Appeal/106/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by Roy Cherian regarding custody disputes were listed for disposal. The child involved had attained majority. The appellant's counsel sought time to gather instructions or settle issues. The High Court refused adjournment, closed both appeals without merits examination, and reserved revival via interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals closed without merits examination; revival permitted via interlocutory applications.

Roy Cherian Vs Ancy Augustine — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934 Mat.Appeal.No. 106 of 2006 ( ) -----------------------------OP.779/1999 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶5

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶6

ROY CHERIAN, S/O.ULLATTIKULAM, VEETTIL CHERIAN, PADINJARE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE KOTTATTU DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

ANCY AUGUSTINE, D/O.AUGUSTINE,

¶10

REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER MERCY, AUGUSTINE

¶11

W/O.AUGUSTINE, KILIYARA VEEDU, CC 20/1335

¶12

KOCHI CORPORATION, PALLURUTHI.

¶13

MERCY AUGUSTINE, W/O.AUGUSTINE,

¶14

KILLIYARA VEEDU, CC 20/1335, KOCHI CORPORATION PALLURUTHI.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.JAYANANDA PAI

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2012,ALONG WITH MA.94/2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶18

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶19

Mat. Appeal Nos. 94 & 106 of 2006

¶20

Dated this the 10th day of September, 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶23

Mr. K.J.Kuriachan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under the impugned common judgment, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.525/1999 filed by the respondent mother (the appellant's wife) for custody of the minor child. The child has by this time attained majority. There is a likelihood of the issues between the parents have been settled by now. Learned counsel submitted that at present he has no instruction in the matter. He sought for time. Being matters listed for disposal, we are not inclined to grant time. We close both these appeals without examining the merits of the grounds raised. It is open to the appellant to seek revival of these appeals, if necessary, by filing interlocutory applications.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶28

krs.

Roy Cherian v. Ancy Augustine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy Cherian v. Ancy Augustine

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

Shaju Jacob @ Cherian Vs Jincy Kuruvila

Alice Zachariah and Another Vs Zachariah Chacko

Rabiya Vs Shaji

Sivaprasad Vs Reena Rajan

Cherupallikkal Seethi Vs Anayath Rujkhiya

M. Anandan and Another Vs Lali