Allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022Crl.MC/4467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Family Court to modify custody terms based on a joint statement and dispose of mutual divorce proceedings within two weeks. Concurrently, the High Court quashed pending criminal proceedings as the offences were compoundable and the parties had settled.

What did the court decide?

Modified custody terms per joint statement; directed Family Court to pass mutual consent divorce decree within two weeks; quashed proceedings in C.C. 432/2017 and C.C. 1936/2016.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944 OP (FC) NO. 207 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 559/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

RENJITH AGED 36 YEARS SON OF NANDAN, PUTHAKKAD, CHERAYAI VEEDU, PUTHUR, OLLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680306

¶10

BY ADV SARATH M.S.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶12

ANIMOL AGED 26 YEARS DAUGHTER OF PUSHPAN, ERUKKINCHIRA, PAZHARNI DESOM, KIZHAKKENCHERY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678682

¶13

BY ADV V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil)

¶14

THIS OP (FC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.07.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4467/2022, 4502/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶21

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶22

CRL.MC NO.4467 OF 2022

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 432/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶24

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶25

SURESH AGED 45 YEARS SON OF PONNAN, MINI INDUSTRIES, ANCHUMOORTHY P O, VALLIYODE, PALAKKAD,, PIN – 678682.

¶26

BY ADVS. SARATH M.S. B.PREMNATH (E)

¶27

RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶28

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

¶29

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VADAKKENCHERY POLICE STATION THRISSUR, PIN – 678683.

¶30

3 ANIMOL AGED 31 YEARS DAUGHTER OF PUSHPAN, ERUKKINCHIRA, PAZHARNI DESOM, KIZHAKKANCHERI VILLAGE ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678682

¶31

BY ADV SHRI.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL.

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, ALONG WITH OP (FC).207/2022 AND CRL.M.C No.4502 OF

¶33

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶34

¶35

2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶37

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4502 OF 2022

¶43

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1936/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR

¶44

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶45

1 RENJITH AGED 36 YEARS SON OF NANDANAN, PUTHAKKAD, CHERAYAI VEEDU, PUTHUR, OLLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680306

¶46

2 SOBHANA WIFE OF NANDANAN, PUTHAKKAD, CHERAYAI VEEDU, PUTHUR, OLLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306

¶47

BY ADVS. SARATH M.S. B.PREMNATH (E)

¶48

RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE FACTO

¶49

COMPLAINANT:

¶50

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶51

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OLLUR POLICE STATION THRISSUR, PIN - 680306

¶52

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶53

¶54

3 ANIMOL AGED 31 YEARS DAUGHTER OF PUSHPAN, ERUKKINCHIRA, PAZHARNI DESOM, KIZHAKKANCHERI VILLAGE ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678682

¶55

BY ADV SHRI.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL.

¶56

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, ALONG WITH OP (FC).207/2022 AND CRL.M.C 4467/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶58

¶59

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.

¶60

O.P. (FC) No.207 of 2022 &

¶61

Crl.M.C Nos.4467 & 4502 of 2022

¶62

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2022

¶63

J U D G M E N T

¶64

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶65

The parties in O.P (F.C) No.207 of 2022 are husband and wife. Their dispute regarding custody of the minor children was resolved in O.P No.559 of 2017 on the file of Family Court, Palakkad. Ext.P2 is the judgment of the Family Court, Palakkad in the said O.P. One of the terms agreed between the parties was to invoke Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve their marriage. A joint petition was filed under Section 13B as per O.P No.158 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Palakkad. Thereafter, when the second motion was made, alleging that there was breach of terms and conditions in the settlement as agreed in O.P No.559 of 2017, the respondent withheld the consent. It is to be noted that, as per clause 7 in the judgment

¶66

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases 7

¶67

in O.P No.559 of 2017, custody arrangement will come into force on the date of filing of the joint petition for dissolution of marriage. Since there was no consent on the side of the respondent during second motion, the Family Court dismissed O.P No.158 of 2019 filed for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent.

¶68

Pointing out breach of terms and conditions by the petitioner/husband, the wife filed I.A No.2 of 2021 in O.P No.559 of 2017 to recall the visitorial rights conferred upon the husband as per the terms agreed between the parties leading to the judgment in O.P No.559 of 2017. The Family Court, noting that there is breach of agreement, modified the conditions. Aggrieved by that order, the husband filed O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022.

¶69

Pending the O.P (FC), we summoned both parties before us. After much deliberation and with the intervention of their lawyers, the parties now amicably settled all their disputes. Accordingly, a joint statement has been filed before this Court.

¶70

The joint statement in effect is to modify the terms and conditions regarding custody of the child as agreed in

¶71

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases 8

¶72

O.P No.559 of 2017. Both parties have no objection in recording the joint statement to supplement and supersede any of the terms and conditions agreed in O.P No.559 of 2017, in terms of the joint statement filed before this Court.

¶73

Accordingly, we accept the joint statement and direct the Family Court, Palakkad to act upon the joint statement filed before this Court, to modify the order already passed in O.P No.559 of 2017. Registry shall forward original of the joint statement to the Family Court, Palakkad.

¶74

The parties agreed to dissolve their marriage. We interacted with both parties. They appeared before us on 04.07.2022 and agreed for divorce by mutual consent. They are firm in their decision. In the joint statement, both parties agreed to revive O.P No.158 of 2019 before the Family Court, Palakkad and recorded no objection in allowing the said O.P in terms of consent.

¶75

In view of the interaction we had with the parties, we are of the view that the Family Court shall pass a formal decree of divorce based on mutual consent, in O.P No.158 of 2019, after restoring it to file.

¶76

¶77

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶78

Therefore, we direct the Family Court, Palakkad to dispose O.P No.158 of 2019 by passing a formal decree of divorce based on mutual consent, without insisting further appearance of the parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks. We also direct the Family Court to dispose O.P No.559 of 2017 based on the joint statement filed before this Court. We make it clear that the joint statement will be supplemental to the arrangement already made and superseding any other terms in the judgment, to the extent the parties agreed to in the joint statement.

¶79

As far as Crl.M.C Nos.4467 and 4502 of 2022 are concerned, it is submitted that the respondents have no objection in quashing the proceedings in C.C No.432 of 2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, Palakkad and C.C No.1936 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. It is seen that the offences alleged are compoundable.

¶80

In view of the fact that the de facto complainant has no objection in quashing the entire proceedings in the above C.Cs, we quash the entire proceedings. Accordingly, the Crl.M.Cs are

¶81

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶82

¶83

allowed. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts concerned, for appropriate orders.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶88

smp

¶89

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶90

¶91

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4467/2022

¶92

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶93

Annexure A1 THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 4.4.2017 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.410/2017 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30.4.2017 IN C.C. NO.432/2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD (CRIME NO.410/2017 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2022

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶98

¶99

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4502/2022

¶100

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶101

Annexure A1 THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 17.3.2016 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.745/2016 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15.5.2016 IN C.C. NO.1936/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THRISSUR (CRIME NO.745/2016 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2022

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp

O.P (FC) No.207 of 2022 & conn. cases

¶106

¶107

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 207/2022

¶108

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶109

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT DATED 28.12.2018 DATED 28.12.2018 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.559/2017 DATED 4.2.2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.9.2020 IN O.P. (F.C.) NO.265/2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

¶110

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.2/2021 IN O.P. NO.559/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 9.9.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO.2/2021 IN O.P. NO.559/2017 DATED 29/9/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶111

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2021 IN I.A. NO.2/2021 IN O.P. NO.559/2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶112

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶113

True Copy

¶114

P.S to Judge

¶115

smp

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. State of Kerala

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

Usha T.B.(Died) Vs P.K. Mani

Ninitha, Vs Saju

Innocent Francis Papali Alias Innocent Sebastain Vs Mereen Manuel Alias Maria Mercy

Renjith Vs Animol

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Marshal Mohammed Vs Sajina.a