Remanded

Gopalakrishnan v. Ambujam

Kerala HC17 Sept 2012Mat.Appeal/24/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial appeal against a Family Court order denying divorce by cruelty, the appellate court found the appeal required a second look. It set aside the lower order, remitted the petition, and directed the Family Court to admit previously excluded documents and further evidence from both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; O.P. remitted to Family Court to admit excluded documents and further evidence from both parties.

Gopalakrishnan Vs Ambujam — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 24 of 2006 ( )

¶6

----------------------------OP.710/1998 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER::

¶8

GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE KARUVAN VELAYUDHAN, KAKKASSERY DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::

¶11

AMBUJAM, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CO-OPERATIVE ROAD CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶15

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶16

Mat. Appeal No. 24 of 2006

¶17

------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶20

Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the husband, the petitioner before the Family Court, in an O.P. under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty, is the order of the Family Court by which the Family Court disallowed divorce. We directed attendance of the petitioner and the respondent in this Court. On interacting with the petitioner, we became convinced that he is totally against the idea of having rapprochment with the respondent. He told us that it was the respondent who destroyed his life and hence he does not want her as his wife any longer. Per contra, the respondent told us that she is totally against the idea of the marital bond being severed by a decree of divorce. The allegation levelled against her in the O.P. by her husband is

¶21

[MA.24/2006] 2

¶22

without any foundation whatsoever. We enquired whether she is willing to have a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act with her husband. She answered in the negative. We are now obliged to consider the merits of the grounds raised.

¶23

Having considered the rival submissions addressed before us by Mr. M.B.Prajith, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Dilip J.Akkara, learned counsel for the respondent and having gone through the impugned order of the Family Court and having made a quick survey of the evidence which came on record of the Family Court (PWs.1 to 3, RW1 and Exts.A1 to A3) and also the documents produced by the appellant before the Family Court against list of documents on 8.7.2001, we are of the view that the matter requires a second look by the Family Court. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remit O.P. No.710/1998 to the Family Court, Thrissur. The Family Court, Thrissur, is directed to permit the appellant to put the 5 documents produced along with the list of documents on 8.7.2001 in evidence properly. The Family Court should allow him to adduce whatever further evidence he wants to adduce in substantiation of the grounds in the O.P. Needless to mention that if the appellant adduces further evidence, respondent is also permitted to adduce counter

¶24

[MA.24/2006]

¶25

¶26

evidence. The parties will enter appearance before the Family Court, Thrissur on 9.10.2012. The learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to expedite matters and pass revised order within four months thereafter. Transmit the lower court records forthwith to the Family Court, Thrissur.

¶27

The Mat. Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶32

krs.

Gopalakrishnan v. Ambujam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan v. Ambujam

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

Nahas.H Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Erumely

Jayaprakash, S/O.Sankaran Vs Sheena, D/O.Damodharan

Seena Darwin Vs Darwin Joseph

M.Praveena Vs Narayanai Ammmal

P.S.Jameela Vs Muhammed Basheer

Fathima Majeed Vs Rubeena