Allowed

Praveen Ravi v. Mithu Tushar

Kerala HC3 Apr 2024Mat.Appeal/510/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, after reviewing a settlement agreement reached during mediation in a matrimonial appeal, dissolved the marriage on mutual consent. The court waived the statutory cooling-off period and allowed the parties to part ways, referencing principles established in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur regarding waiving the waiting period.

What did the court decide?

The matrimonial appeal was disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.03.2024. The marriage was dissolved based on mutual consent with effect from the date of the judgment.

Praveen Ravi Vs Mithu Tushar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

¶4

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY,THE3RDDAYOFAPRIL2024/14THCHAITHRA,1946
MAT.APPEALNO.510OF2019

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2019 IN OP NO.649 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

PRAVEENRAVI
AGED37YEARS
S/O.M.K.RAVI,RADHANIVAS,OPP.JAYALAKSHMISCHOOL,
MARUTHUSEVANAGARPOST,BANGALORE.

¶8

BYADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
SRI.SATHEESHANALAKKADAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

MITHUTUSHAR,AGED34YEARS,
W/O.PRAVEENRAVI,RESIDINGATKOLEMKOTTILHOUSE,
PATTOLA,MANAPPADAMPOST,PALAKKAD-678689.

¶11

SRI T K SANDEEP, FOR PARTY RESP.

¶12

THISMATRIMONIALAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORFINALHEARINGON
03.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶13

Mat. Appeal No. 510 of 2019

¶14

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

¶17

This Matrimonial Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2019 in O.P. No. 649/2016 on the files of the Family

¶18

Court, Palakkad.

¶19

O.P.No.649/2016 was originally filed by the

¶20

petitioner-husband seeking dissolution of marriage. By the impugned

¶21

judgment, the learned Family Court proceeded to dismiss the petition.

¶22

When the appeal was pending consideration before this

¶23

Court, based on the request made by both parties, the parties were referred to mediation to make an attempt to resolve their disputes.

¶24

We are pleased to note that the parties have finally reached an amicable settlement and they have decided to part ways. All monetary aspects have been settled. A Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.3.2024 executed under Section 89 of the Code

¶25

Mat. Appeal No. 510 of 2019

¶26

¶27

of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternate Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008, has been placed on record.

¶28

We have gone through the settlement agreement and we find that none of the terms are unlawful. Among other conditions, in the settlement agreement, the parties have also stated that they have unanimously agreed on their own, and without any compulsion or persuasion, to terminate the marital relationship and to file a joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶29

In the light of the agreement so executed, I.A No. 2 of 2024 has been filed seeking to waive the statutory period which was allowed by this Court by order dated 01.04.2024. They have stated in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11/9/2011, and the same has broken down irretrievably without any scope of reunion. It is further stated that they are finding it difficult to coexist and cohabit in harmony and have been living separately since 2013. It is also stated that the application has been

¶30

Mat. Appeal No. 510 of 2019

¶31

¶32

filed with due application of mind and there is no coercion or influence in filing the petition. We had allowed the application.

¶33

They have filed IA No. 3 of 2024 seeking to dissolve the marriage between the parties on mutual consent.

¶34

We directed the parties to appear before us in person. We have interacted with them to ascertain whether they have genuinely settled their differences including alimony or any other pending issues between the parties. They both submitted that all issues have been settled and that they had filed the petition for divorce by mutual consent out of their own free will and volition and there is absolutely no chance for reconciliation and reunion. We find that Punya Praveen, the minor daughter, is with the mother, and order of maintenance for her has been made in clause 11 of the agreement.

¶35

In Amardeep Singh¹ , the Apex Court while considering the grant of divorce by mutual consent by waiving the cooling of

¶36

period had occasion to observe as under:

¶37

1Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017 (4) KHC 683)

¶38

Mat. Appeal No. 510 of 2019

¶39

¶40

Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under S.13B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

¶41

i) the statutory period of six months specified in S.13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under S.13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

¶42

ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXII A R.3 CPC / S.23(2) of the Act / S.9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

¶43

iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of the child or any other pending issues between the parties;

¶44

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

¶45

After having carefully considered the facts of the instant case and

¶46

after interacting with the parties, we are satisfied that it would be in the interest

¶47

of both sides to put a quietus to all litigations and to save the parties from any

¶48

further agony.

¶49

In that view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.03.2024 entered into between the parties.

¶50

The Memorandum of Agreement shall form part of this judgment. The marriage

¶51

Mat. Appeal No. 510 of 2019

¶52

¶53

between the parties solemnized on 11.09.2011 will stand dissolved based on mutual consent with effect from today.

¶54

sd/-

¶55

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶56

sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶57

DCS

¶58

BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶59

Mat ADDeal No.510/2019

Praveen Ravi

Appellant

Mithu Tushar, Respondent

¶64

Memorandum of agreement under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) rules 2008

¶65

The parties above named beg to submit as follows

¶66

The aforesaid, Mat,Appeal and Mat.Appeal No,455/2019 were referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties, in the course of mediation, that has taken in the presence of mediator they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and Conditions given below; 1, The appellant and the respondent have unanimously agreed on their own without any compulsion or persuasion of anybody else to terminate the marital relationship and they have decided to file a joint petition for divorce under Section 138 of Hindu Marriage Act before the High Court of Kerala,

¶67

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the appellant/Praveen Ravi agreed to pay an amount of Rs,28,00,000/-(Rupees twenty eight lakhs only) towards the full and final settlement of maintenance to the respondent/Mithu Thushar.

¶68

Appellant Respondent Mithu Tushar ivf±f¥ Praveen Ravi W42f-

¶69

:ct,`J ifeLL J \astatei.ictiai.OnQr,!6la ¢,t,,v ,,.'• I. __ r^\ 'rt r)i t<~Hgkno:hQ,u.rt6%f2Ko%i\a A =E,I

¶70

(2)

¶71

3, ln view of the agreement to receive the above said amount of Rs,28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs Only) from the appellant, the respondent / Mithu Thushar agreed that she will not make any further claim from the appellant in future and she has asserted that the above said amount has been received by her as full and final settlement in respect of marriage between them and she is not entitled for any other relief from the appellant. It is also agreed by the respondent / Mithu Thushar that she will not make any claim of maintenance for herself, as awarded in the order dated 28.06,2018 in M.C.No,65/2016 of Family Court, Palakkad,

¶72

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, both parties had signed the joint application for divorce and they also agreed to give evidence in the joint application for divorce before the court.

¶73

In compliance of the clause 2 above the appellant herein had taken a D,D, bearing No. 001389 dated 16.03.2024 of HDFC Bank Hennur Road Branch Bangalore, for Rs.28,00,0000 (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs Only) in the favour of the respondent and the same had been handed over to the counsel for the respondent / Mithu Thushar and the same will be given to the respondent Mithu Thushar on the day on which the joint application for divorce will come up for hearing.

¶74

6, The appellant/ Praveen Ravi agreed to return the gold ornaments weighing 458.04 grams to the counsel of the respondent on this day and that the respondent/Mithu Thushar has withdrawn the entire claim made in OP 268/2016 on the files of Family Court Palakkad and its challenge in Mat,Apl 455/2019 before this Honble High Court of Kerala.

¶75

The respondent / Mithu Thushar on this day will handover the gold chain (Tali and Chain) to the Counsel for Appellant / Praveen Ravi.

¶76

AppeLLant Praveen Ravi EEEEE=

¶77

Respondent Mithu Tushar

¶78

I.I.--,.15r,11`

¶79

ifeL,+3\as{at€;it„, .„ ,.. r.hHOKh;:h?,u.rt632%°;rta!'a tL.... I d hit

¶80

(3)

¶81

8, The appellant/Praveen Ravi hereby handed over all the certificate, Aadhar card, passport, Horoscope etc. of the respondent to her counsel on this day,

¶82

The counsel for the respondent/ Mithu Thushar shall keep the D,D,, certificates and gold ornaments in safe custody and shall hand over the same to the respondent / Mithu Thushar on the date of adducing evidence in the joint application for divorce.

¶83

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the respondent / Mithu Thushar agreed to withdraw Mat. Appeal.No.455/2019 which is now pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Since the respondent / Mithu Thushar has agreed to withdraw the above Mat Apl 455/2019, signature of 2nd respondent Sri.M,K,Ravi is not necessary in the agreement,

¶84

11, This agreement between the parties will not in anyway affect the order of maintenance in favour of daughter Punya Praveen and her future rights.

¶85

ln view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the above Mat, Appeal may be disposed of in terms of aforesaid agreement.

¶86

If any of the parties have violated any of the terms and conditions in the agreement, the other party is at a liberty to execute the same in accordance with law'

¶87

Dated this the 20th day of March 2024.

¶88

^p::N€:\ean":awl #!]ri RI=Nph:"Tdu:h":I fu9S)i9'

¶89

Counsel for the appellant Counsel for the respondent ng*¥TG=®,®9 The above settlement agreement is authenticated by by me. I:fjl*\ rfusx>s±\vultcrvn cgivd3PJ6 Wilson K,P

¶90

Wilson K,P ife L 3\a Stats i.ie:'3j,:.'::a.ii'i {r:;.,i! t;/ti`ic:i.iation centre Mediator `````` H.igh court of Kerala ```` Koch.I-682031

¶91

#g,\f,6\£9,

Praveen Ravi v. Mithu Tushar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Ravi v. Mithu Tushar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arshak Nath C.P Vs Monisha C.S

Reshma Sreedharan Vs Rajeesh

Nayana S Vs Anurag

Jayaprakash Vs Dr. Lakshmi Shobhan

Saranya Asokan Vs Arun Narayanan Nair

Aswathi a. Vs Dwipin v Nair