Disposed

Reji Hamsa v. Sithara

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022Mat.Appeal/37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matrimonial appeals challenging a Family Court order for return of gold and other property were disposed. The parties resolved disputes through mediation by executing a settlement memorandum, leading the High Court to dispose of the appeals based on those terms. No adverse judgment is cited as unaffected by consent.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed based on terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 28.10.2022.

Reji Hamsa Vs Sithara — 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2021 IN OP.NO.284 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶8

APPELLANT/S:

¶9

1 REJI HAMSA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) HAMSA, KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILAMCHERI P.O., MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 704 REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FATHER, 2ND APPELLANT.

¶10

2 HAMSA, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALI, RESIDING AT KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILAMCHERI P.O., MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 704.

¶11

3 HAJIRA HAMSA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.HAMSA, RESIDING AT KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILAMCHERI P.O., MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 704.

¶12

4 NAJLA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.HAMSA, RESIDING AT KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILAMCHERI P.O., MELARCODE VILLAGE,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 704.

¶13

BY ADV BABY MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

SITHARA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.ALI IQBAL,
SITHARA VEEDU, KARUMATH VALAPPIL,
CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM, PALLIPURAM DESOM,
PALLIPURAM P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 305.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

¶18

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶19

K.A.MANZOOR ALI
T.K.SURESH

¶20

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.11.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.507/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶28

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶29

MAT.APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2022

¶30

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2021 IN OP.NO.284 OF 2016 OF

¶31

FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶32

APPELLANT/S:

¶33

SITHARA, AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.ALI IQBAL, SITHARA VEEDU, KARUMATH
VALAPPIL, CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM, PALLIPURAM
DESOM, PALLIPURAM P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 305.

¶34

BY ADV K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶35

RESPONDENT/S:

¶36

1 REJI HAMSA, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILANCHERI P.O., MELARKKODE VILLAGE, ALTHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 704.

¶37

2 HAMSA, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALI, RESIDING AT KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILANCHERI P.O., MELARKKODE VILLAGE, ALTHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 704.

¶38

3 HAJIRA HAMSA, AGED 58 YEARS W/O.HAMSA, KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILANCHERI P.O., MELARKKODE VILLAGE, ALTHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 704.

¶39

4 NAJILA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.HAMSA, KALLATHANI VEEDU, CHITTILANCHERI P.O., MELARKKODE VILLAGE, ALTHOOR TALUK,

¶40

¶41

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶42

PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 704.

¶43

OTHER PRESENT:

¶44

SRI BABY MATHEW- RESPONDENT

¶45

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.11.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.37/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

¶47

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶50

Mat.Appeal No.37 of 2022:- The appellants are the

¶51

respondents in O.P.No.284 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Ottappalam, which was one filed by the respondent herein-wife of the 1^st appellant for return of gold ornaments or its equivalent value. By the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2021 the Family Court allowed O.P.No.284 of 2016 only in part and the appellants were directed to return 46.19 sovereigns of gold ornaments described as item Nos.1 to 13 in the petition ‘A’ schedule to the respondent herein within one month from the date of that order or its present market value with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation; to return platinum with diamond ring described in Ext.A6 bill therein to the respondent herein within one month from the date of the order or to pay its cost with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation; to give Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner respondent herein with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation; and to give Rs.26,500/- to the respondent herein as cost of fridge with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation. It was also ordered that the decree shall have a charge on the petition schedule property. Challenging the said judgment and

¶52

¶53

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶54

decree of the Family Court, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶55

1.1 On 14.01.2022 when this appeal came up for admission,

¶56

this Court admitted the matter on file and issued urgent notice to the respondent by speed post. In I.A.No.1 of 2022, this Court also stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree, on condition of the appellants furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Family Court, within a period of two months. It was also ordered that the property under attachment can be offered as security.

¶57

1.2 On 23.05.2022 when this appeal came up for

¶58

consideration, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre attached to this Court on 03.06.2022 at 10:30 a.m.

¶59

Mat.App.No.507 of 2022:- The appellant, who is the respondent in Mat.Appeal No.37 of 20222, filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Ottappalam in O.P.No.284 of 2016 to the extent of declining relief in

¶60

respect of items 14 to 22 in petition ‘A’ schedule.

¶61

2.1 On 17.08.2022 when this appeal came up for admission,

¶62

this Court admitted the matter on file. The respondent appearance

¶63

¶64

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶65

and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre attached to this Court on 24.08.2022.

¶66

Now the parties have settled the entire disputes in mediation and executed a memorandum of settlement dated 28.10.2022, which is placed on record in Mat.Appeal No.37 of 2022, along with the report dated 31.10.2022 of the Mediator.

¶67

Today when these appeals are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on both sides would submit that since the parties have settled the entire disputes in mediation, these appeals can be disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 28.10.2022.

¶68

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement agreement dated 28.10.2022, which shall form part of this judgment.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR

JUDGE

bkn/-

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶77

¶78

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶79

¶80

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶81

¶82

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

¶83

¶84

MAT.APPEAL Nos. 507 and 37 OF 2022

Reji Hamsa v. Sithara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Hamsa v. Sithara

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

Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Shijumon.P Vs Amitha.K.N

Shyma M. Vs Saheedkutty

Dhanya Vs Leela

Sithara Vs Reji Hamsa

Sahir (Ashiq) Vs Febina