Allowed

Beena Mathew v. John K.Varghese

Kerala HC16 Jul 2012Mat.Appeal/515/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a matrimonial appeal wherein the appellant filed an original petition for recovery of marriage expenses. The court disposed of the appeal based on a joint compromise entered between the appellant and the second respondent, directing the execution of a decree against the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Executable decree in terms of the compromise will be passed against the second respondent.

Beena Mathew Vs John K.Varghese — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012/25TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 515 of 2011 ( )

¶6

-----------------------------OP.650/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

BEENA MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, FROM RCL-3/24, AMBA MATHA TEMPLE G.I.D.C. VAPI DIST., VALSAD, GUJARAT NOW RESIDING AT VALLIKKALAYIL HOUSE, THANNITHODU P.O., THANNITHODU MURI, THANNITHODU VILLAGE KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

BY ADVS.SRI. K.SHAJ

SRI.SAJJU.S

RESPONDENT(S):

JOHN K.VARGHESE, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.K.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KALATHARAYIL HOUSE CHAYALOD P.O., NEDUMON MURI, EZHAMKULAM

¶14

VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 645.

¶15

K.VARGHESE @ GEORGEKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT, KALATHARAYIL HOUSE CHAYALOD P.O., NEDUMON MURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW FOR CAVEATOR

¶17

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MAT. APPEAL NO.515/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

ANNEXURE A1: JOINT COMPROMISE ENTERED BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶21

//TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶23

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

¶24

Mat. Appeal No.515 of 2011

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶28

The appellant filed O.P.No.650 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, against the respondents for realisation of money given at the time of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the Original Petition, against which the Mat. Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the second respondent submitted that the disputes between the parties were settled. A joint compromise petition signed by the appellant and the second respondent is filed. It is submitted that the first respondent is working abroad.

¶29

The joint compromise petition filed by the appellant and the second respondent is recorded and the Mat. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. An

¶30

Mat. Appeal No.515/2011

¶31

¶32

executable decree in terms of the compromise will be passed as

¶33

against the second respondent.

¶34

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

¶35

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JUDGE

¶36

csl

Beena Mathew v. John K.Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Mathew v. John K.Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundaran Vs Sathyabhama and Others

Saji Ashokan and Others Vs Nithya Soman

Angel Philip Vs v.T.Alexander

Sophia K.S @ Sheeba Vs T.Shibu

Chacko Jose @ Saju & K.O.Chacko Vs Bincy Francis

O.J.Justine Vs Anitha