Sujitha vs George Thomas
2021 Latest Caselaw 4353 Ker

                                  1
Mat.Appeal.No.516 OF 2014

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                  &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                      Mat.Appeal.No.516 OF 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(RM) 337/2012 RE-NUMBERED AS OP
   (RM)40/2013 DATED 31-03-2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA


APPELLANT/S:

                SUJITHA
                D/O.MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS,MADATHIUMPARA HOUSE,
                CHINNAR, ELAPPARA, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
                REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
                HOLDER, M.J.MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, MADATHUMPARA HOUSE,
                CHINNAR, ELAPPARA, PEERMEDU TALUK

                BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

                GEORGE THOMAS
                S/O.THOMAS, CHIRAKKATTEL THEKKEMURIYIL HOUSE,
                MEENADOM KARA, MEENADOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK,
                KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 516

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                2
Mat.Appeal.No.516 OF 2014




          A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & C.S.DIAS, JJ.
             ======================
               Mat.Appeal No.516 of 2014
             ======================
          Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021.

                            JUDGMENT

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE , J.

The Mat.Appeal is of the year 2014. It has been filed

challenging the decree and judgment in OP (RM)

No.337/2012 re-numbered as OP (RM) No.40/ 2013 on the

files of the Family Court, Kattappana.

2. The above original petition was filed by the

petitioner for recovery of money and household items from

the respondent herein. The Family Court dismissed the

original petition.

3. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment

passed by the Family Court, the petitioner/appellant has

come up with this appeal. The respondent herein died

during the pendency of the appeal. This Court by an order

dated 13.2.2020 directed the appellant to take necessary

Mat.Appeal.No.516 OF 2014

steps to implead the legal heirs of the respondent. But no

steps have been taken so far.

4. In the light of the above, we are of the view that

the appeal has become abated. Accordingly, the Mat.Appeal

is dismissed as abated.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

SKS/5.2.2021