Matrimonial appeal against a Family Court judgment was dismissed as not pressed after the appellant's counsel filed a memo stating the disputes had been resolved out of court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
&
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
MONDAY,THE8THDAYOFAPRIL2024/19THCHAITHRA,1946
MAT.APPEALNO.794OF2018
AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTDATED27.05.2016INO.P.NO.310OF
2013OFFAMILYCOURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOHNBRITO
S/OA.P.CHERIAN,AGED39YEARS,ARATTUKULAMHOUSE,
KUNNAKKAL,VALAKOMVILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA-682316.
BYADVS.
BIJUABRAHAM
V.S.SIMI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
PRINTUANTONY
D/OANTONY,AGED34YEARS,CHULLIKKALHOUSE,
AROORVILLAGE,AROORP.O.,CHERTHALA-688534.
THISMATRIMONIALAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON08.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:
2
Mat. Appeal No.794 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
A “not pressed” memo has been filed by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant stating that the disputes have been resolved out of court.
In that view of the matter, this Mat. Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE
DCS
John Brito
Printu Antony
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
P.M. Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court