Allowed

Seena Koyadan Veettil v. Cherakka Kesavan Jaideep

Kerala HC6 Feb 2012Mat.Appeal/714/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a matrimonial appeal against the dismissal of a mutual consent divorce petition. Finding that the parties had appeared and filed a joint affidavit confirming separation and mutual consent, the court granted a decree dissolving the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent was granted with immediate effect.

Seena Koyadan Veettil Vs Cherakka Kesavan Jaideep — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/17TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

MA.No. 714 of 2011 (C)

¶8

OP.702/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶9

APPELLANT/2ND PETITIONER:

¶10

SEENA KOYADAN VEETTIL D/O.K.P.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT SIVAGANA ELLARANJI KOOTTUMUGHAM POST, KOOTTUMUGHAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HECKER STREET, 37,79114, FRIEBURG, GERMANY.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA

¶13

RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER:

¶14

1 CHERAKKA KESAVAN JAIDEEP

¶15

S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAI MANDIR POST PUNNAPALA, VANDOOR POST MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 679 328.

¶16

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ROBERT KOCHI STR.50A 53115 BONN, GERMANY.

¶17

BY SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mat. Appeal No.714 of 2011C

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2012

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

K.M. Joseph J.,

¶24

The appeal is filed against the order passed by the Family

¶25

Court, Kannur dismissing O.P. No.702 of 2010, which was filed by the appellant and the respondent in the Mat. Appeal as a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce.

¶26

The impugned order shows that both the appellant and the respondent in this Appeal were absent and for that reason the O.P. was dismissed.

¶27

The parties were present today before us when the case was called in the morning. We interacted with them. They would say that they have decided to part ways. Thereafter they have filed a joint affidavit, wherein it is inter-alia stated that due to the difference of opinion, they decided to live separately since 01.6.2008 and they are also convinced that they cannot adjust with each other in their future and they cannot live together as husband and wife in their future life. They have also stated that the consent

¶28

Mat. Appeal No.714 of 2011 : 2 :

¶29

has not been obtained by force or fraud or undue influence. It is

¶30

also stated that there is no collusion between them in filing the petition.

¶31

The petition under Section 13B was filed on 10.9.2010 and

¶32

it was posted on 17.3.2011. Thereafter it was disposed of by the impugned order on 10.6.2011 noting the absence of the appellant

¶33

and the respondent. The period of 18 months from the date of petition will expire on 9.3.2012. Since Appeal is in continuance of the proceedings, the parties have appeared before us and also filed joint affidavit, we feel that in the circumstances of this case we should grant a decree for divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant and the respondent. Accordingly we pass the decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent with effect from today.

¶34

The Mat. Appeal is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.M. JOSEPH,

(JUDGE)

Sd/-

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶40

dl/

Seena Koyadan Veettil v. Cherakka Kesavan Jaideep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seena Koyadan Veettil v. Cherakka Kesavan Jaideep

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

M.Rajani Vs K.Sunilkumar

Abdurahiman Vs Ayisha.K

Abdurahiman Vs Ayisha.K

Anand Vs Parvathy

Rahul Rajan Vs Prinu Ponnappan

Liju Balan Vs Smeha