Disposed

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

Kerala HC16 Jul 2012Mat.Appeal/986/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial appeal filed against a decree for money and property realization from a Family Court, the appellant filed a memo stating the respondent received Rs. 3,25,000 as full settlement. The court accepted this settlement, disposed of the appeal, and ordered withdrawal of the attachment before judgment.

What did the court decide?

Matrimonial appeal disposed of on recorded settlement; attachment before judgment withdrawn; Family Court to intimate to Sub Registrar.

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

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

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 986 of 2010 ( )

¶7

OP.36/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶9

CHACKO JOSE @ SAJI, S/O.CHACKO,AGED 34 YEARS, THANEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.10 VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DIST.

¶10

K.O.CHACKO, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, THANEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.10, VARANAM P.O. CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶13

BINCY FRANCIS, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.MANI FRANCIS, THEKKEKARICKATTIL HOUSE PAKALOMATTOM P.O., PIN 686642 KURAVILANGADU VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (W/O.CHACKO JOSE, KULANGARAVELI, THANEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, WARD-10, VARANAM.P.O. CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN BY ADV. SRI.BIJU GOPAL

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Mat. Appeal No.986 of 2010 C

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶21

The respondent filed O.P.No.36 of 2010 before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor against the appellants for realisation of money, gold ornaments and household articles. The Family Court allowed the petition in part and granted a decree to realise a sum of 2,10,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of suit and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the approximate value thereof at 1,05,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of decree as well as the movable articles shown in the plaint and in default to realise a sum of 15,000/- from the respondents therein. A memo dated 16<sup>th</sup> July, 2012 is filed by the learned counsel for the appellants stating that the respondent received a sum of 3,25,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claim. The

¶22

¶23

Mat. Appeal No.986/10

¶24

learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statement made in the memo is correct and the respondent is satisfied with the sum of ` 3,25,000/- is received by her.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances, the Mat. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement and full satisfaction of the decree in O.P.No.36 of 2010, Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, is recorded. The attachment before judgment made in O.P.No.36 of 2010 shall stand withdrawn forthwith and the Family Court shall intimate the said fact to the Sub Registrar's Office.

¶26

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶27

csl

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Beena Mathew Vs John K.Varghese

O.J.Justine Vs Anitha