Dismissed

Millan Abraham & Others v. Sino.P.Kuriakose

Kerala HC1 Feb 2012Mat.Appeal/223/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of matrimonial appeals arising from a Family Court decree for divorce and a declaration of nullity. The parties settled during mediation, paying agreed amounts for divorce, maintenance arrears, and other claims. The Court upheld the Family Court orders, insisting on retaining an observation of impotency as foundational to the decree while recording the settlement as full an

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Family Court upholding divorce and nullity; recordings of payments for maintenance and divorce made as per settlement.

Millan Abraham & Others Vs Sino.P.Kuriakose — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

MA.No. 223 of 2011

¶8

OP.1017/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

MILAN ABRAHAM,S/O.M.M.ABRAHAM,AGED 34, MYLADUMPARA(H),KANAMALA.P.O,PAMPAVALY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AT P.O.BOX-182845,DUBAI UAE,REP.BY HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MILSON.M.ABRAHAM S/O.M.M.ABRAHAM,AGED 37 YEARS,MYLADUMPARA HOUSE, KANAMALA P.O, PAMPAVALY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

M.M.ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O.MATHUNNI OF DO. DO.

¶12

ACHAMMA ABRAHAM @ KUNJUMOL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O.M.M.ABRAHAM, OF DO. DO.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶15

SINO P. KURIAKOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.P.S. KURIAKOSE, PURATHEPARAMBIL HOUSE SAJIVOTHAMAPURAM.P.O, KURICHI VILLAGE, CHINGAVANAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV.SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶17

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2012, ALONG WITH MA. 224/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶19

¶20

Mat.Appeal No.223 of 2011 & Mat.Appeal No.224 of 2011

¶21

Dated, this the Ist day of February, 2012 J U D G M E N T

¶22

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶23

Mat.Appeal No.223/2011 is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed in O.P.1017/2009. By the impugned order, the Family Court, Kottayam has decreed a sum of `.2,00,000/- with interest. Mat.Appeal No.224/2011 is against the order passed in O.P.1018/2009 by which the Family Court allowed the OP and declared the marriage between the parties as null and void.

¶24

The parties were referred for mediation. They have arrived at a settlement. As per the settlement, the appellant has agreed to pay .1,80,000/-. A sum of .60,000/- has been deposited before the court below and `.1,20,000/- was to be paid by Demand Draft to the respondent on 30.1.2012. It was also agreed that the

¶25

MA.223,224/2011 -2-

¶26

parties have no objection in upholding the decree relating to divorce deleting the observation of impotency. Arrears of maintenance (`.15,000/-) was also to be paid.

¶27

Today, when the matter came up, a Demand Draft for .1,20,000/- has been handed over by the learned counsel for the appellants to the learned counsel for the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the amount of .60,000/- which was deposited has been withdrawn by the respondent. Today, a sum of `.15,000/has been handed over by the learned counsel for the appellants to the learned counsel for the respondent in cash towards arrears of maintenance as per clause 3 of the agreement. We find ourselves unable to delete the observation regarding impotency and yet uphold the decree as it appears to be the very foundation for the decree. Of course, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties stayed together only for nine days. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed in O.P.1018/2009 and close the Mat.Appeal

¶28

MA.223,224/2011 -3-

¶29

No.224/2011.

¶30

Mat.Appeal No.223/2011 also will stand

¶31

closed in terms of the mediation recording the payments in full and final settlement of the claims in terms of the order passed in OP.1017/2009 and also in relation to the MC.

¶32

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶33

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE.

¶34

Millan Abraham & Others v. Sino.P.Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Millan Abraham & Others v. Sino.P.Kuriakose

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

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko Vs Raji

Wilson Vs Annie @ Sherly

Abisha Vs Poozhithara Suresh

Saji Thomas Vs Shiny.P.

Kaveri S.Thampi Vs Renjith P.S.

Fajar Vs the Director General of Police