Partly allowed

Krishnakumar v. Ambily C.

Kerala HC8 Jun 2012Mat.Appeal/421/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three matrimonial appeals filed by the husband. Relying on a settlement agreement executed on 30.5.2012 where the wife waived future rights for a lump sum payment, the Court dismissed the divorce appeal, allowed the appeal challenging the restitution of conjugal rights order, and disposed of the maintenance appeal.

What did the court decide?

Matrimonial Appeal No.421 of 2010 dismissed; Matrimonial Appeal No.425 of 2010 allowed with judgment set aside; Matrimonial Appeal No.499 of 2010 disposed of recording satisfaction of judgment.

Krishnakumar Vs Ambily C. — Maintenance and Alimony | 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

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 421 of 2010 (A)

¶7

OP.732/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶8

APPELLANT: PETITIONER:

¶9

KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI,KRISHNAVIHAR HOUSE MEENACHIL P.O.,MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P

¶11

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT:

¶12

AMBILY C., AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHANDINI HOUSE,PALA P.O.,LALAM VILLAGE MURIKKUMPUZHA BHAGOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶14

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2012, ALONG WITH MA. 425/2010 AND 499/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

---------------------------------------------------Mat.Appeal Nos.421, 425 & 499 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2012

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶19

Mat. Appeal No.421 of 2010 arises out of O.P.No.732 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. O.P.No.732 of 2007 was filed by the husband for divorce. That Original Petition was dismissed. The husband filed Mat.Appeal No.421 of 2010.

¶20

Mat. Appeal No.425 of 2010 is filed by the husband challenging the judgment in O.P.No.683 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, by which, the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights made by the wife was allowed by the Family Court.

¶21

Mat. Appeal No.499 of 2010 was filed by the husband against the judgment in O.P.No.772 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, by which, the Family Court allowed

¶22

Mat.Appeal Nos.421, 425 & 499 of 2010

¶23

:: 2 ::

¶24

the claim for value of gold ornaments made by the wife. The counter claim filed by the husband in O.P.No.772 of 2009 was partly allowed by the Family Court.

¶25

The disputes and differences between the parties were settled and an agreement dated 30.5.2012 was executed between the parties. The agreement reads as follows:

¶26

“This deed of agreement entired into on this 30^th day of May 2012, between Krishnakumar.K. aged 42 years S/o.Krishnan Namboothiri, Krishna Vihar, Meenachil P.O., Pala, Kottayam District as First Party and Ambily.C. aged 39 years D/o.Chandra Sekharan Nair, Chandini House, Pala P.O., Murikkumpuzha, Kottayam District as the Second Party.

¶27

That we were married on 17.8.1997 at Murikkumpuzha Devi Temple as per the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion. A male child is born out of the wedlock on 13.8.1998. Due to incompatibility of temperament and difference of opinion we are living separately from 25.2.2007 onwards. There where cases between us before the Family Court Ettumanoor and appeals are pending before The High Court. In spite of repeated mediation we both are convinced and satisfied

¶28

Mat.Appeal Nos.421, 425 & 499 of 2010

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

that it is impossible to lead a family life together. Hence we voluntarily out of free will decided to settle all the disputes between us on the following terms and we have decided to dissolve the marriage between us on the following terms.

¶31

At any cost the marriage between us should be dissolved at the earliest.

¶32

It is agreed by the second party who is the decree holder in E.P.99/2010 before the Family Court of Ettumanoor that her rights as per the decree in O.P.772/2009 and her right for future maintenance, her rights under protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and her entire rights as wife of second party is settled for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/(Eight Lakhs) only which she already received today from the first party. Hence the parties relieve each other from any liabilities and rights acquired by them by this marriage.

¶33

The first party herein shall have his right regarding the child as per the GW.OP.672/2008.

¶34

The first party agrees to deposit the maintenance to the minor in his account every month.

¶35

Mat.Appeal Nos.421, 425 & 499 of 2010

¶36

:: 4 ::

¶37

The second party herein by accepting Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs) as above mentioned relinquished all her rights as per the order in MC.250/2010 and she relinquished her entire rights for future maintenance also.

¶38

The second party herein have no objection in withdrawing the security deposit and the amount deposited by the first party with interest if any before the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶39

The parties voluntarily agreed and signed before the witnesses.”

¶40

It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the wife that she received a sum of Rupees Eight lakhs from her husband in terms of the settlement agreement and that she had issued receipt dated 30.5.2012.

¶41

In view of the settlement between the parties, the Matrimonial Appeals are disposed of as follows:

¶42

a) Mat. Appeal No.421 of 2010 is dismissed.

¶43

Mat.Appeal Nos.421, 425 & 499 of 2010

¶44

:: 5 ::

¶45

b) Mat. Appeal No.425 of 2010 is allowed and the judgment in O.P.No.683 of 2007 rendered by the Family Court is set aside.

¶46

c) Mat. Appeal No.499 of 2010 is disposed of recording that the judgment in O.P.No.772 of 2009 is satisfied. The amount deposited by the husband as per the interim order dated 2.7.2010 in Mat. Appeal No.499 of 2010 together with interest, which is lying in bank deposit shall be withdrawn by the husband in terms of the settlement.

¶47

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶48

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶49

ahz/

Krishnakumar v. Ambily C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar v. Ambily C.

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

Subi Sherif Vs Shamsudeen and Another

Ashfaque Vs A.K. Afsala

Rajesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shini N.P Vs Unnikrishnan K.

Ser Ka.Raju Vs Prince Joy

Peettayil Abdul Azeez Vs Peettayil Mariyam