Disposed

Tomy James v. Sheeba Augustine @ Mary

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022Mat.Appeal/79/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of matrimonial appeals and revision petitions regarding patrimonial recovery and maintenance after parties settled disputes through successful mediation resulting in a memorandum of agreement.

What did the court decide?

All pending matrimonial appeals and revision petitions were disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement agreement executed between the parties on 30.10.2022.

Tomy James Vs Sheeba Augustine @ Mary — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 380/2014 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶9

PALA

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

SHEEBA AUGUSTIN @ MARY

¶12

AGED 36 YEARS

¶13

D/O. AUGUSTY THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, PUTHIYODATHU HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O., KADANAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.C.J.JOY

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 TOMY JAMES AGED 46 YEARS S/O. T.C. CHACKO, AGED 46 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶17

2 T.C. CHACKO AGED 84 YEARS S/O. T.C. CHACKO (DECEASED), AGED 84 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (DIED ON 28.05.2015) - 686 577.

¶18

3 MARY CHACKO AGED 83 YEARS W/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 83 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶19

4 GEORGE.C.THOTTAKARA AGED 59 YEARS S/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 59 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶20

5 JAMES C.THOTTAKARA AGED 64 YEARS

¶21

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶22

¶23

S/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 64 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶24

6 JOHNSON C.THOTTAKARA AGED 53 YEARS S/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 53 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶25

7 JOSE ROGER AGED 51 YEARS

¶26

S/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 51 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶27

8 SUSAMMA FRANCIS AGED 67 YEARS

¶28

D/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 67 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA

¶29

HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶30

9 AANIAMMA THOMAS AGED 65 YEARS

¶31

D/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶32

10 NANCY GEORGE AGED 56 YEARS D/O. T.C.CHACKO, AGED 56 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKAKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.

¶33

BY ADV SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶34

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶36

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶42

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶43

MAT.APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2018

¶44

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 380/2014 OF FAMILY COURT,

PALA

APPELLANT/S:

TOMY JAMES

AGED 46 YEARS

AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶50

BY ADV SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶51

RESPONDENT/S:

¶52

1 SHEEBA AUGUSTINE @ MARY AGED 36 YEARS AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.AUGUSTHY THOMAS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O., KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶53

2 T.C.CHACKO THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶54

3 MARY CHACKO

¶55

AGED 38 YEARS

¶56

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, (DIED), W/O.T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POOJAR, THEKKEKARA

¶57

P.O.,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶58

4 GEORGE C. THOTTAKKARA AGED 39 YEARS AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶59

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶60

¶61

5 JAMES C.THOTTAKKARA AGED 64 YEARS AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶62

6 JOHNSON C.THOTTAKKARA AGED 53 YEARS AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶63

7 JOSE ROGER AGED 51 YEARS AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶64

8 SUSAMMA FRANCIS AGED 67 YEARS

¶65

AGED 67 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶66

9 AANIAMMA THOMAS AGED 65 YEARS

¶67

AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶68

10 NANCY GEORGE AGED 56 YEARS

¶69

AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.C.CHACKO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POOJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶70

BY ADVS. SRI.C.J.JOY SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI SMT.TINY THOMAS SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

¶71

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶72

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶73

¶74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶77

¶78

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶79

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶80

RPFC NO. 36 OF 2018

¶81

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 21/2014 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶82

PALA

¶83

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶84

1 SHEEBA AUGUSTIN @ MARY AGED 36 YEARS D/O AUGUSTY THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS,PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, NEELOOR PO, KADANAD VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶85

2 MINOR REYANJACOB AGED 4 YEARS, S/O TOMY, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE,NEELOOR PO, KADANAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,(REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHERAND GUARDIAN THE 1ST PETITIONER)

¶86

BY ADVS. SRI.C.J.JOY SMT.VALSAMMA KURIAN JOSE

¶87

RESPONDENT/S:

¶88

TOMY JAMES S/O T.C CHAKCO, AGED 46 YEARS, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE,POONJAR, THEKKAKARA PO, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686577

¶89

BY ADV SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶90

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶91

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶92

¶93

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶94

PRESENT

¶95

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶96

¶97

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶98

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶99

RPFC NO. 142 OF 2018

¶100

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 21/2014 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶101

PALA

¶102

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶103

TOMY

¶104

AGED 46 YEARS AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHACKOCHAN, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, POONJAR SOUTH P.O., ERATTUPETTAH, ERATTUPETTAH P.S.

¶105

BY ADV SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶106

RESPONDENT/S:

¶107

1 SHEEBA AUGUSTINE @ MARY AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.AUGUSTHY THOMAS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O., KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶108

2 REYAN JACOB

¶109

AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.TOMY, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O., KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶110

BY ADV SRI.C.J.JOY

¶111

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶112

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶113

¶114

JUDGMENT/ORDER

¶115

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶116

These appeals and revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order.

¶117

Mat Appeal No.66 of 2018 :- The appellant is the

¶118

petitioner in O.P.No.380 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Pala, which was one filed against respondents 1 to 3 herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,00,400/- being patrimony amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and value of gold ornaments amounting to Rs.7,50,400/- from the respondents. By the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2017, the Family Court allowed that original petition in part, allowing the appellant to recover Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from respondents 1 to 3 herein and from the assets of respondents 1 and 3 and also the assets of the deceased 2^nd respondent, which has passed on to his legal representatives, i.e., respondents 1, 3 and also respondents 4 to 10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984.

¶119

2.1 On 19.11.2018, when this appeal came up for

¶120

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶121

¶122

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

¶123

Mat Appeal No.79 of 2018:- The appellant is the 1^st respondent in O.P.No.380 of 2014, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein, before the Family Court, Pala for return of gold ornaments and other valuables. That original petition was decreed in part by the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2017 to the extent of allowing the petitioner to recover Rs.2,50,000/with interest @ 6% per annum from the respondents 1 and 3 and from their assets and also from the assets of deceased 2^nd respondent which was passed on to the other respondents as his legal heirs.

¶124

3.1 The appeal was filed along with an application of condonation of delay, I.e., CM.Appl.No.197 of 2018, which was allowed by the order dated 14.06.2018. On 21.06.2018, this Court admitted the appeal on file and granted an interim stay in I.A.No.203 of 2018.

¶125

RP(FC) No.36 of 2018:- The revision petitioners are the petitioners in M.C.No.21 of 2014. which was one filed under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance only at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/respectively. The Family Court by the order dated 27.09.2017

¶126

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶127

¶128

allowed M.C.No.21 of 2014 granting maintenance only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each for the wife and minor child. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition, invoking the provisions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶129

4.1 On 16.01.2018, when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent by speed post.

¶130

RP(FC) No.142 of 2018:- The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.21 of 2014, which is on filed by the respondents herein, wife and minor child, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Family Court by the order dated 27.09.2017 allowed M.C.No.21 of 2014 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each for the wife and minor child. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition, invoking the provisions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶131

5.1 On 16.03.2018, when the matter was taken up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents.

¶132

During the pendency of these Mat Appeals and RP(FC)s, the matter was referred for mediation by the order of

¶133

¶134

Mat Appl.Nos.66 and 79 of 2018 & OP(FC)Nos. 36 and 142 of of 2018

¶135

this Court dated 10.08.2022. Now the parties have settled the

¶136

disputes in mediation and they have entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 30.10.2022, which is placed on record along with the report dated 29.11.2022 of the Mediator.

¶137

Today, when these matters are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on both sides would submit that since the parties have settled the disputes in mediation, the appeals and revision petitions can be disposed of, in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 30.10.2022.

¶138

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, these appeals and revision petitions are disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 30.10.2022, which shall form part of this judgment/order.

¶139

Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶140

Sd/-

¶141

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶142

Dxy

Tomy James v. Sheeba Augustine @ Mary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy James v. Sheeba Augustine @ Mary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

John Daniel Vs Jainy John

John Daniel Vs Jainy John

M.K. Gheevarghese Vs Mariam Gheevarghese

Sheeba Augustin @ Mary Vs Tomy James

Abhilash.S Vs Viswa Lakshmi T.V.

Sheeba Augustin @ Mary Vs Tomy James