Kerala High Court
Bincy Susan Baby vs Bincy Susan Baby on 22 February, 2021
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA,
1942
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 533/2014 DATED 17-07-2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
BINCY SUSAN BABY
AGED 39 YEARS,
D/O P.S.BABY, VALIYAPARAMBIL
HOUSE,KULATHUNKAL, VAKAYAR PO, MANGARAM MURI,
KONNI VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PHARMACIST, NEETHI
MEDICAL STORE, AZHOOR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
PHILIP T. GEORGE
AGED 43 YEARS,S/O T.P.GEORGE, THENGAUMTHARAYIL
HOUSE,MAKKAMKUNNU PO., AZHOOR MURI,
PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689645 NOW WORKING AT
KUWAITP.B.NO.27176/SAFAT 13132, KUWAIT.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021
C.S.Dias,J.
The respondent in O.P. 533/2014 on the file of the
Family Court, Pathanamthitta is the appellant in this
appeal. The petitioner in the above original petition is
the respondent in this appeal.
2. The respondent had filed O.P.533/2014,
seeking to dissolve his marriage with the appellant
on the grounds that the appellant had treated him
with cruelty and deserted him for more than two
years preceding the presentation of the petition.
Even though the appellant had filed a written
objection refuting the allegations in the original
petition, the Family Court by the impugned judgment
and decree allowed O.P.No.533/2014 dissolving the
marriage between the respondent and the appellant
by a decree of divorce.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the
appellant is before this Court.
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
4. When the appeal came up for consideration
on 18.2.2021, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that the appellant and the respondent have filed
I.A No.1/2021 stating that the matrimonial disputes
between them have been settled and that they have
resumed co-habitation as husband and wife. In view
of the said harmonious settlement, they have prayed
that the appeal be allowed and the impugned
judgment and decree in O.P. 533/2014 be set aside
and the original petition be dismissed.
5. On finding the compromise to be lawful, we
directed the parties to appear in person or through
video conferencing.
6. Today, the parties appeared before us
through video conferencing. Both the appellant and
the respondent have in unequivocal terms stated that
they have settled all their marital disputes and that
they are living together as husband and wife for the
last more than five months. Both of them have
empathetically stated that they have signed the
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
compromise on their own free volition without any
threat or coercion from any person and that they are
not desirous of prosecuting the appeal. In unison they
prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be
set aside and the original petition itself be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/respondent and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/petitioner.
8. The statement of objects and reasons as well
as the preamble of the Family Courts Act, 1984,
makes it obligatory on the part of the Family Courts to
promote conciliation and speedy settlement of marital
disputes.
9. Rule 3 of O.XXXIIA of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 also casts a duty on the court to
make every endeavour in the first instance to assist
the parties in arriving at a settlement.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anu
Bhandari v. Pradip Bhandari [2018 (6) SCC 389]
relying on Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
has held that a duty cast on the Court to make every
endeavour to assist and persuade the parties in
arriving at a settlement.
11. In Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (4) SCC
675], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the
quashing of matrimonial offences, in order to
encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial
disputes. The said legal position has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in a
plethora of decisions.
12. Taking analogy from Anu Bhandari and
Joshi (supra) and the principles laid down under Rule
3, Order XXXIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, and
the preamble and Section 9 of the Family Courts Act,
and on being convinced and satisfied that the
compromise arrived at between the appellant and
respondent to be genuine and bona fide, we accept I.A
No.1 of 2021 (the compromise).
In the result, we allow the Mat.Appeal by setting
aside the judgment and decree in O.P 533/2014 on
Mat.Appeal.No.950 OF 2017
the file of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and
dismiss O.P. No.533/2014. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their
respective costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
ma/23.2.2021
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
/True copy/
