Marykutty v. Joy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the Family Court order dismissing a petition for return of gold ornaments and patrimony, granting the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence before a fresh decision is made.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Family Court to afford parties opportunity to adduce evidence for fresh decision.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934
Mat.Appeal.No. 112 of 2008 ( ) -----------------------------(ORDER IN OP.104/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 27-11-2007)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MARYKUTTY, KOTTAKAPPALLY VEEDU URUKUNNU MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK. PIN-401 303.
BY ADVS.SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM
SRI.C.N.SIVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JOY, L/101 - HILL PARK, JEEVDANI VIRAN EAST, THANE DISTRICT, PIN-401303 FROM KOTTAKAPPALLY VEEDU, URUKUNNU MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the Family Court order dismissing the original petition for return of gold ornaments and patrimony due to lack of evidence.
Whether the parties' willingness to cohabit is a relevant consideration in a petition for return of gold ornaments and patrimony.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
MARYKUTTY
- respondent
JOY
Coram
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court