Dismissed

Anilkumar K.P v. v.K.Jayasreemol

Kerala HC2 Jul 2012Mat.Appeal/375/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a Matrimonial Appeal filed by the husband and in-laws against a Family Court decree. Upon hearing a joint affidavit stating the disputes were settled and the parties agreed to not pursue further litigation, the Court recorded satisfaction of the decree and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed based on the joint affidavit stating that disputes were settled out of court and the Family Court decree was fully satisfied.

Anilkumar K.P Vs v.K.Jayasreemol — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2012/11TH ASHADHA 1934

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 375 of 2009 (C)

¶7

OP.213/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3:

¶9

ANILKUMAR.K.P. AGED 36 YEARS,

¶10

S/O. K.E.PARAMESWARAN, THENAMPLAKKIL(ANIL NIVAS) PUNNATHURA WEST.P.O. MADAPPAD KARA,

¶11

ETTUMANUR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶12

K.E.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, THENAMPLAKKIL (ANILNIVAS) PUNNATHURA WEST.P.O. MADAPPAD KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

NIRMALA, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶14

W/O. K.E.PARAMESWARAN, THENAMPLAKKIL(ANIL NIVAS) PUNNATHURA WEST.P.O., MADAPPAD KARA,

¶15

ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL

¶17

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶18

V.K.JAYASREEMOL, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. KESAVANACHARI, VETARUPARAMBIL HOUSE MEENADAM KARA, MEENADAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.GINESH.P.

¶20

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

I.A.NO.1352/2009 IN MAT. APPEAL NO.375/2009

¶22

DISMISSED

¶23

02/7/2012 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶24

SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE

¶25

//TRUE COPY//

¶26

AHZ/

¶27

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

¶28

Mat. Appeal No.375 of 2009 C

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶32

The Matrimonial Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Family Court, Ettumanoor in O.P.No.213 of 2007. O.P.No.213 of 2007 was filed by the respondent for return of money, gold ornaments and household items. The Family Court allowed the Original Petition in part and rejected the counter claim and the respondent/wife was given a decree for realisation of 75,000/- with 9% interest from the date of suit and 29.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rupees Three lakhs with 9% interest from the date of decree. The Family Court also granted a decree for return of steel almirah and ceremonial lamp, in default of which, the appellants were directed to pay a sum of 4,000/-.

¶33

Appellant No.1 and the respondent filed a joint affidavit dated 3.4.2012, in which, it is stated that the disputes between the parties were settled out of Court. It is mentioned in the affidavit that O.P.No.219 of 2008 was filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kottayam for divorce, that Original Petition was decreed and against

¶34

Mat. Appeal No.375 of 2009 C

¶35

:: 2 ::

¶36

which, appellant No.1 (husband) has filed Mat. Appeal No.384 of 2009 and the same is pending.

¶37

Paragraph 2 of the joint affidavit reads as follows:

¶38

“2. It is respectfully submitted that we have settled the issues out of Court and the 2^nd deponent has been paid whatever amount due to her and the 2^nd deponent has returned the gold ornaments given to her by the 1^st deponent. The 2^nd deponent has been paid permanent alimony as part of the settlement and we both parties categorically agreed not to make any further litigation in the matter.”

¶39

In view of the settlement as stated in the joint affidavit, the Matrimonial Appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint affidavit and full satisfaction of the decree in O.P.No.213 of 2007 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor is recorded.

¶40

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶41

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶42

ahz/

Anilkumar K.P v. v.K.Jayasreemol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar K.P v. v.K.Jayasreemol

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

Pauline @ Pauline Grancy Vs v.P.Paul

Leena and Others Vs Moses and Another

P.V. Bhaskaran Vs N.V. Remadevi

Mujeeb Rahiman Vs Shimcia

V.P.Kavitha Ranjini @ Urvashi Vs Sri. Manoj K.Jayan

Pramod Vs Deepika