Dismissed

Karthikeyan v. Sudha and Another

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012Mat.Appeal/720/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a matrimonial appeal seeking dissolution of marriage based on adultery. The court held that evidence did not prove adultery but recognized the bond was broken. Dissolution under Section 13(1A) was denied; appeal dismissed, but liberty granted to file a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

Dissolution of marriage not granted in this appeal; liberty granted to file a fresh petition under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act within three weeks.

Karthikeyan Vs Sudha and Another — 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

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 720 of 2010 ( )

¶8

OPHMA.945/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

KARTHIKEYAN SREELAKSHMI,KODUKULANGI.P.O,CHENGANNUR ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.P.V.KOCHUTHRESIA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶13

SUDHA, D/O NARAYANAN ASSARI,

¶14

ADITHYAVILASAM,(PALAKONATHU PADINJATTETHIL) PUTHENVEEDU,MALOOR.P.O,PATHANAPURAM-689695.

¶15

SASI.D,ASWATHY,PATHIRICKAL.P.O,

¶16

PATHANAPURAM-689 695.

¶17

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶20

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶21

Mat. Appeal No. 720 OF 2010

¶22

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2012

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶25

Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the husband is the judgment of the Family Court, Alappuzha declining dissolution of marriage sought for on the ground of adultery, nevertheless granted a decree of judicial separation on the basis of the finding that the bond between the parties have irretrievably broken down. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuous submissions before us on the basis of the grounds raised, after having made a survey of the evidence we are of the view that the evidence on record in this case will not justify a finding that the first respondent is guilty of

¶26

Mat. Appeal No.720 of 2010 -:2:-

¶27

adultery. At the same time as rightly found by the Family Court the evidence amply proves that the relationship between the first respondent and the petitioner is irretrievably broken down.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant towards the end of her submissions drew our attention to Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act and requested that a decree of dissolution be granted in terms of that Section. We find that S.13(1A) contemplates presentation of an original petition on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties even after the lapse of one year after passing the decree of judicial separation. We find no way to allow this appeal and grant a decree of dissolution on the ground under Section 13(1A). We sustain the impugned judgment. We give liberty to the appellant to initiate fresh proceedings before the Family Court, Alappuzha seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground under Section 13(1A). If the appellant files a fresh petition on the ground under Section 13(1A) within three weeks from today the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court will

¶29

Mat. Appeal No.720 of 2010

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

give priority to that application and dispose of that application in

¶32

accordance with law without undue delay.

¶33

Sd/- ( PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶34

Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶35

ul/-

¶36

[True copy]

¶37

P.S. to Judge.

Karthikeyan v. Sudha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan v. Sudha and Another

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

K.Shameena Vs a.a.Rasheed

Sibi, D/O.Ramla Beevi Vs Shahul Hammed Shamsudeen

Subash.K. Vs Ramya.M.R.

Biju Mon.K.N. Vs Sini

K.N.Bijumon Vs Sulochana and Another

Maxwell.M Chennur Vs Happy (Anna Happy)