Dismissed

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko v. Raji

Kerala HC31 Jan 2012Mat.Appeal/96/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, parties reached an amicable settlement during pending proceedings. The appellant paid the respondent Rs.3,50,000 under compromise. The Court dismissed the appeal as settled, dismissed the cross objection, and allowed withdrawal of deposited security money.

What did the court decide?

Settlement confirmed; appeal dismissed; cross objection dismissed; appellant allowed to withdraw deposited Rs.50,000.

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko Vs Raji — 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

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2012/11TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

MA.No. 96 of 2008

¶8

OS.247/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANTS:

¶10

JOSEMON, S/O.CHACKO, RESIDING AT

¶11

KALEELAZHIKATHU VEEDU, ANDOOR, VALAKOM KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER YOHANNAN CHACKO KALEELAZHIKATHU VEEDU, ANDOOR, VALAKOM

¶12

KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

YOHANNAN CHACKO, KALEELAZHIKATHU VEEDU, ANDOOR, VALAKOM KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.K.BABU (VETTAKALAYIL)

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶16

RAJI, D/O. JOHN, PAZHAVILAYIL VEEDU, KARAVALOOR PO., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV.SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ADV.SRI.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE[MEDIATOR]

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-01-2012, ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.12/2011THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

----------------------------------------Mat.Appeal No.96 of 2008-B, Cross Objection No.12 of 2011 in Mat.Appeal No.96 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.496/2011 in Cross Objection No.12 of 2011

¶21

Dated, this the 31^st day of January, 2012

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶24

Apparently the parties have arrived at a settlement. A memo is also filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It reads as under:

¶25

“This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 22/08/2007 in O.S.No.247 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. During the pendency of the said appeal the subject matter of this appeal as well as other proceedings between the parties were amicably settled and the parties have filed a compromise petition in E.P.No.5 of 2008 in O.S.No.247 of 2005. As per the terms of said compromise an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the respondent on 04/11/2011 for which stamped receipts were also issued by the respondent. Consequent upon the payment of the said amount all financial matters in connection with the matrimonial

¶26

MA 96/08 & C.O. 12/11 -2-

¶27

disputes have been settled and the respondent has agreed that she has no objection in lifting the attachment however the scheduled property in O.S.No.247 of 2005. In view of the settlement between the parties on 04/11/2011, whereby the impugned decree is satisfied, this appeal is not necessary and hence the same may be dismissed and the appellant may be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the appellant before the Family Court, Kottarakkara as per interim order dated 08/02/2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶28

We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

Respondent has filed a cross objection in which there is a petition C.M.Appln.No.496/2011 to condone the delay of 952 days in filing the cross objection. Learned counsel for the cross objector also submits that the cross objection is not pressed and that he does not seek any orders in the cross objection in the light of the settlement between

¶30

the parties. In the light of the above, we dismiss the Matrimonial Appeal. C.M.Appln.No.496/2011 and Cross

¶31

MA 96/08 & C.O. 12/11 -3-

¶32

Objection No.12/2011 are also dismissed as not pressed. The amount which is deposited by the appellants (`.50,000/-) before the Family Court, Kottarakkara in terms of the interim order can be withdrawn by the appellants.

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)

JUDGE.

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko v. Raji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko v. Raji

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

Manikkoth Aboobacker Vs Meethale Puthalath Naseema

Shafeek and Others Vs Hameena

T.Rajini Vs K.Purushothaman

Wilson Vs Annie @ Sherly

Abisha Vs Poozhithara Suresh

Sreeja Vs Vijayan