Partly allowed

Vineetha.v. v. K.Anil

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/338/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial appeal regarding the dissolution of marriage and dispute over gold ornaments, the High Court held that the appellant is entitled to a share in the jointly purchased land. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the ex parte order and remanding the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration after permitting an amendment to the petition.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the dismissal of the original petition was allowed but the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The appellant was permitted to amend the petition.

Vineetha.v. Vs K.Anil — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(HMA)NO.666/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

VINEETHA.V., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. VIJAYN, KOODATHIL, PURAKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

K.ANIL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PUTHUVAL, PURAKKAD PANCHAYAT, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.T.J.SEEMA

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Mat.Appeal No.338/2014 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶17

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. What remains now is the dispute between the parties related to utilisation of the gold ornaments by the respondent. The appellant's case is that her gold ornaments were utilized by the respondent for the marriage of his sister. Based on the intervention of Karayogam, 12 cents of land was purchased in the name of the appellant and the respondent as per sale deed No.2749/2004. The respondent was set ex parte.

¶18

The Family Court observed that the property was purchased in consideration of the value of gold ornaments and the appellant cannot claim realisation of the amount

¶19

Mat.Appeal No.338/2014 3

¶20

in the petition. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed

¶21

the original petition.

¶22

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

¶23

Admittedly, the dispute between the parties is out of matrimonial dispute. If the appellant is not entitled to realisation of the amount, the appellant would certainly be entitled to a share in the property purchased in the name of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant can also claim such right based on the document. We give liberty to the appellant to make a suitable amendment to the petition now filed alternatively seek any relief related to the property as well. Anyway, we are of the view that the matter requires a fresh consideration as the respondent

¶24

was set ex parte before the Family Court. We, therefore,

¶25

Mat.Appeal No.338/2014 4

¶26

set aside and remand back the matter for fresh consideration. We also give liberty to the appellant to amend the petition now filed, if so warranted. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Alappuzha, on 27.09.2021. The Registry is directed to return LCR to the Family Court. The Family Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months thereon. The respondent is also given liberty to file a written statement and any additional pleadings, if any, based on the proposed amendment.

¶27

The Mat.Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶30

Vineetha.v. v. K.Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineetha.v. v. K.Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gireesh Vs Radhika

K.K.Shaji Vs Valsamma

K.K.Shaji Vs Valsamma

Manu Cheriyan Vs Philomina Decitha Edwin

Anilkumar Kurup, Vs Suma Anil

Aneesh C.I. Vs Leena P.K