Disposed

Sunitha Kumari V.R v. Sugunan

Kerala HC23 Nov 2022Mat.Appeal/163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a matrimonial appeal challenging a property and maintenance judgment and a revision petition challenging a maintenance order. Both disputes were settled through mediation, and the court dismissed the pending proceedings in accordance with the settlement agreement dated 16.11.2022.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and revision petition were disposed of in terms of the mediation settlement agreement dated 16.11.2022.

Sunitha Kumari V.R Vs Sugunan — Maintenance and Alimony | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2021 IN OP.NO.502 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 SUNITHA KUMARI V.R, AGED 46 YEARS
S.S NIVAS, NILAMAYIL, KUTTICHAL P.O,
MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695574

¶11

2 ANJANA, AGED 24 YEARS
S.S NIVAS, NILAMAYIL, KUTTICHAL P.O,
MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695574

¶12

BY ADVS.
ADITHYA RAJEEV
T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

SUGUNAN, AGED 55 YEARS
NILAMAYIL, KUTTICHAL P.O, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-
PIN-695 574.NOW RESIDING AT AMMU HOUSE,
KANNAMPALLY P.O, VENJARAMOOD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543

¶15

BY ADVS.
IYPE JOSEPH
V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶16

¶17

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶18

THIS MAT. APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.11.2022, ALONG WITH RP(FC).54 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶27

RPFC NO. 54 OF 2017

¶28

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2016 IN M.C.NO.230 OF 2016 OF

¶29

FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶30

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶31

SUGUNAN, AGED, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN,
RESIDING AT S.S.NIVAS, NILMA, KUTTICHAL, P.O.,
MANNOKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHIAPURAM.

¶32

BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN V.G (K/795/2004)
SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
SRI.S.K.SULOK

¶33

RESPONDENT/S:

¶34

1 SUNITHAKUMARI V.R, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.VASANTHI, RESIDING AT S.S.NIVAS, SHALI KRISHNAN, NILMA, KUTTICHAL, P.O., MANNOKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶35

2 ANJANA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SUNITHAKUMARI V.R., RESIDING AT S.S.NIVAS, SHALI KRISHNAN, NILMA, KUTTICHAL, P.O., MANNOKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶36

3 AKHIL, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.SUNITHAKUMARI V.R., RESIDING AT S.S.NIVAS, SHALI KRISHNAN, NILMA, KUTTICHAL, P.O., MANNOKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER SANTHAKUMARI.

¶37

¶38

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶39

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SRI.JAIBY PAUL

¶40

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.11.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.163/2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

¶42

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶43

JUDGMENT/ORDER

¶44

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶45

Mat.Appeal No.163 of 2022 :- The appellants filed O.P.No.502 of 2016 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, for

¶46

recovery of money, realisation of value of gold ornaments and value of household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-. The 2^nd appellant also claimed Rs.30 Lakhs towards marriage expenses. That original petition was allowed in part by the judgment and decree dated

¶47

30.10.2021. The operative portion of that judgment reads thus:

¶48

“In the result, the Original Petition is decreed as follows:

¶49

(1) The 1^st petitioner’s exclusive title and ownership over the petition A schedule property is declared as per Sale Deed No.908/2006 of Kattakkada Sub Registry Office by ignoring the name of the respondent in the said document.

¶50

(2) The respondent is restrained from forcibly evicting the petitioners from the petition A schedule property and from making anything to obstruct their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶51

(3) The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,500/(7.5 x 25,000/-) (Rupees One Lakh Eightyseven Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards value of 7.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 1^st petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this petition till payment.

¶52

(4) The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakh only) towards the marriage expense of the

¶53

¶54

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶55

2^nd petitioner.

¶56

(5) No costs is ordered.”

¶57

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2021 in O.P.No.502 of 2016, the appellants filed this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶58

1.1. On 04.03.2022 when this appeal came up for admission,

¶59

this Court admitted the matter on file and issued urgent notice to the respondent by speed post.

¶60

R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017 :- The petitioner, who is the

¶61

respondent in Mat.Appeal No.163 of 2022 has filed this revision petition, under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 08.11.2016 of the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C.No.230 of 2016, which is one filed by the respondents invoking the provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance. That M.C was allowed in part, by the order dated 08.04.2016, whereby the revision petitioner was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st petitioner, Rs.9,000/- to the 2^nd petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to the 3^rd petitioner, from the date of the petition, i.e., 18.05.2016 onwards. The 1^st petitioner was permitted to receive the monthly maintenance granted to the minor child, the 3^rd

¶62

¶63

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶64

petitioner.

¶65

2.1 On 31.01.2017 when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent. In Crl.M.A.No.542 of 2017, this Court passed an

¶66

interim order which reads thus;

¶67

“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have gone through the order impugned. Having regard to the facts, as an interim measure, the execution of the impugned order will stand stayed on the following conditions:

¶68

(a) The petitioner shall pay and continue to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) each per mensem to the respondents 1 to 3 till the revision petition is disposed of or the order is otherwise modified.

¶69

(b) The petitioner shall deposit half of the accrued arrears, if any, at the above rate before the court below within a period of three weeks from today.

¶70

(c) On the respondents filing an appropriate application, the amount deposited towards accrued arrears shall be released to them.

¶71

(d) Failure to comply with the above conditions would entail in immediate cancellation of this order.”

¶72

During the pendency of these matters, both parties were referred for mediation before the Ernakulam Mediation Centre, in the premises of this Court, by the order dated 20.06.2022. Now the parties have settled the disputes in mediation and the memorandum of agreement executed under Section 89 of the Code

¶73

¶74

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶75

of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution), Rules, 2008, which is one dated 16.11.2022, is placed on record along with the report dated 16.11.2022 of the Mediator. Condition No.2 of that memorandum of agreement deals with R.P(FC)No.54 of 2017.

¶76

Today when these matters are taken up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that since the parties have settled the disputes in mediation, these matters can be disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of agreement dated 16.11.2022.

¶77

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the appeal and revision petition are disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement agreement dated 16.11.2022, which shall form part of this judgment/order.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR

JUDGE

bkn/-

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

¶87

¶88

MAT.APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 and R.P(FC).No.54 of 2017

Sunitha Kumari V.R v. Sugunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunitha Kumari V.R v. Sugunan

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

Shylaja Vs Ajayan

Shylaja Vs Ajayan

Sunitha Ann Varghese, Vs Nibu Mathew Titus

Archana.P.K., Vs Deepesh O.

Vidya Vs Pradeep

Vidya Vs Pradeep