Dismissed

Sudheesh.T.S v. Renu G.L

Kerala HC20 Jan 2023Mat.Appeal/1016/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the appellant contested a Family Court decree regarding property declaration, gold ornaments recovery, maintenance, and permanent injunction. The sole respondent raised a memo stating the dispute was settled and the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court recorded the memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The matrimonial appeal was dismissed as withdrawn following the filing of a memo by the appellant declaring the settlement of disputes between the parties.

Sudheesh.T.S Vs Renu G.L — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2023)

¶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 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2017 IN O.P.NO.1860 OF
2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

SUDHEESH.T.S
S/O M.THANKAYYAN,SUDHEESH BHAVAN, ANCHALIKKONAM-
PARASSALA P.0., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SMT.P.ANJANA
SMT.R.BINDU
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SRI.M.S.KALESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1RENU G.L
D/O V.GOPI,CHARUVILA VENU BHAVAN, UNDAP-
PARAPOOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695575.

¶13

2M. THANKAYYAN
RESIDING AT SUDHEESH BHAVAN, ANCHALIKKONAM-
PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502.

¶14

3R. SAROJINI
W/O THANKAYYAN, RESIDING AT SUDHEESH BHAVAN, AN-
CHALIKKONAMPARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695502.

¶15

BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Mat.Appeal No.1016 of 2017

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶22

The appellant is the 1^st respondent in O.P.No.1860 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is one filed by the respondents herein (wife of the appellant and her parents), seeking a decree for declaration, recovery of money and other reliefs. The original petition was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2017. The operative portion of that

¶23

judgment reads thus;

¶24

“(i) It is hereby declared that petitioner’s absolute title and possession over the petition schedule property comprised in Survey No.289/1 of Block No.42 in Perumkulam Village is declared.

¶25

(ii) Respondent and his men are hereby permanently restrained from alienating or encumbering any portion of the petition schedule property or doing anything which adversely affect the right, title and possession of the petitioner.

¶26

(iii) The 1^st petitioner is allowed to recover 65 sovereign of gold ornaments or its market value at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per sovereign with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment.

¶27

(iv) The petitioner is allowed to recover articles shown in schedule No.3 from the respondents.

¶28

(v) The 1^st respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the child, as ordered in M.C.No.197 of 2016.

¶29

(vi) The petitioners’ prayer for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs with interest is rejected.

¶30

¶31

Mat.Appeal No.1016 of 2017

¶32

The petitioner wife is allowed to recover cost from the husband.”

¶33

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, along with C.M.Application No.3369 of 2017 for condoning the delay of 203 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 26.06.2017.

¶34

On 09.07.2018, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and granted an interim stay in I.A.No.3308 of 2017. The said order reads thus;

¶35

“ I.A.No.3308 of 2017

¶36

All further proceedings in E.P.No.71 of 2017 in O.P.No.1860 of 2011 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand stayed till the disposal of the above appeal, subject to condition that the appellant shall furnish security with respect to the 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments or tis market value, along with interest due thereon, to the satisfaction of the Family Court, within a period of one month from today; and subject to further condition that the appellant shall handover the articles mentioned in clause (iv) of the decree and shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance ordered under clause (v) of the decree.

¶37

It is also made clear that the appellant is hereby restrained from violating the prohibitory injunction incorporated in the decree by virtue of clause (ii) therein.”

¶38

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,

¶39

the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has

¶40

Mat.Appeal No.1016 of 2017

¶41

¶42

filed a memo dated 22.12.2022 to dismiss this appeal as

¶43

withdrawn. The said memo reads thus;

¶44

“The appellant has informed that the dispute between the parties to the marriage have been fully settled before the lower court and a compromise petition has been filed to that effect. In view of the same, this Matrimonial Appeal has become infructuous and may be dismissed as such.”

¶45

Recording the aforesaid memo filed by the learned counsel for

¶46

the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶47

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶50

Sudheesh.T.S v. Renu G.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh.T.S v. Renu G.L

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

Dr.Harija Vs Lijo Jose

Minu M Vs Arun K.Nair

Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh C.K. Vs Dhanya

Paulson, Vs Sandhya

Praveen.P.v Vs Lintu Lukose