Disposed

Biju James v. Julie Chacko

Kerala HC21 Oct 2022Mat.Appeal/1005/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the appellant's matrimonial appeal challenging the Family Court's dismissal of his divorce petition. Counsel for both parties noted that the respondent-wife had subsequently obtained a divorce decree in a separate original petition. The Court allowed the appeal on this ground, rendering the original petition moot.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in view of the subsequent divorce decree granted to the respondent-wife in her original petition.

Biju James Vs Julie Chacko — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 1005 OF 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN O.P.NO.180 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

BIJU JAMES, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 45 YEARS,
VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, MELPURAPUZHA P.O., PURAPUZHA
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.FAZIL
SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ
SMT.PARVATHI VENUGOPAL
SRI.SAJU THALIATH
SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
SRI.A.C.THOMAS ADHIKARAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 JULIE CHACKO, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.CHACKO, VENGALIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O., MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-686613.

¶14

2 PHILIP GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, NEAR KTDC HOTEL, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PINCODE-691523.

¶15

BY ADVS.DR.THUSHARA JAMES
SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

-2-

¶18

Mat.Appeal No.1005 of 2017

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶21

The appellant-husband filed O.P.No.180 of 2013 before

¶22

the Family Court, Thodupuzha seeking a decree of divorce of the marriage solemnized with the 1^st respondent-wife on 27.12.1999. The said original petition was tried along with O.P.No.117 of 2013 filed by the 1^st respondent-wife against the appellant for realization of money and gold ornaments. By the common judgment dated 31.01.2017, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.180 of 2013 filed by the appellant-husband and allowed O.P.No.117 of 2013 filed by the 1^st respondentwife. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.180 of 2013, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶23

On 22.09.2017, when this appeal came up for

¶24

admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued urgent notice to the respondents.

¶25

By the order of this Court dated 24.08.2022, both parties were directed to appear before the Ernakulam

¶26

-3-

¶27

Mat.Appeal No.1005 of 2017

¶28

Mediation Centre in the premises of this Court on 29.08.2022 for mediation.

¶29

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appeal filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.117 of 2013 has already been allowed in part. Thereafter, the appellant paid the entire decretal amount, in the execution petition before the Family Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the 1^st respondent-wife filed an original petition seeking decree of divorce, which was allowed by the Family

¶30

Court, Thodupuzha. In view of the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in the subsequent original petition filed by the 1^st respondent-wife, this appeal may be disposed of taking note of the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in the said original petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-wife would submit that the wife has already obtained a decree of divorce from the Family Court, Thodupuzha in a subsequent original petition.

¶32

-4-

¶33

Mat.Appeal No.1005 of 2017

¶34

In such circumstances, this appeal is disposed of, taking note of the fact that the 1^st respondent-wife has already obtained a decree of divorce in the subsequent original petition filed before the Family Court, Thodupuzha.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

AV/25/10

Biju James v. Julie Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju James v. Julie Chacko

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

Aneena Elizabeth Varghese Vs Jayson Abraham

Jayson Abraham, Vs Aneena Elizabeth Varghese

Jayson Abraham Vs Aneena Elizaneth Varghese

Shaik Musthafa Vs Shajeena

Sabu M Varghese Vs Vimala Rosy A.A

Shalini Vs Lakshmanan