Kerala High Court
Prathiba Rijesh vs Rijesh Chandrasekhar on 11 April, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 730 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN Mat.Appeal NO.454 OF 2018 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
PRATHIBA RIJESH
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.P.A.VIJAYAN, PONNETH HOUSE, ELINJIPRA P.O.,
CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680 721
BY ADVS.
SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
VINCENT JOSEPH (CHUNDATT)
ASWIN KUMAR M J
HELEN P.A.
ARUN ROY
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
R.P.No.730/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.454/2018
-:2:-
RESPONDENT/S:
RIJESH CHANDRASEKHAR
S/O.KOLATHEKAT CHANDRASEKHARAN, "VALSALYAM", NATTIKA
VILLAGE, VALAPPAD P.O., THRISSUR 680 567
SR.ADV.SUMATHI DANDAPANI
ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.730/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.454/2018
-:2:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.730/2021 in MAT.APPEAL No.454/2018
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
O R D E R
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The review petition is filed by the respondent in the matrimonial appeal.
2. We had allowed the matrimonial appeal granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
3. The review petitioner seeks to review the judgment pointing out that this Court has attributed her with the entire responsibility of spoiling the marital tie and she has been found 'at fault' whereas according to her, the respondent had abandoned her and had refused to resume the marital ties and further that this period of separation cannot be a ground to grant a decree of divorce. The petitioner prays to review the judgment and dismiss the matrimonial appeal with costs. R.P.No.730/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.454/2018 -:2:-
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has remarried after divorce. The said submission is recorded.
5. In view of the above, the review petition is only to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a further request in the matter. She wants to be appointed as the sole legal guardian and custodian of the minor child Ananya. The respondent father has no objection in appointing her as the legal guardian. Accordingly, we declare the review petitioner exclusively as the sole legal guardian and custodian of the minor child Ananya.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ms