Kerala High Court

Vinod A. N vs Anila Sankar on 29 October, 2021

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A MUNANED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 297" DAY OF OCTOBER 2621 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1948
§ NG. 35 OF 2egR
AGAINST THE ORDER/ HINGMENT IN OP 1866/2045 OF FANTLY
COURT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

 

APPELLANT:

VINDD A. N., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O, LATE NARAYANAN
NAMBOOTHIRI, AGT MANALLLOM, EAST KADUNGALLOOR, ULC.
COLLEGE, 8.0. ALUVA 683 178,

BY ADVE,
SRI.C.P SAIT
SMT. PODEEPA MOHAN

RESPONDENTS»
4 ANILA SANKAR, AGEO 29 YEARS, 0/0. LATE SANKARAN

EMERAANTHIRI, VARIKKATTU MADOM, VRINGAVAN POOPPATHY
P.O. KADUNGALOQOR THRISSUR G6HO 733.

(REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER SREERAJ.S. , 8/0. LATE
SANARARAN EMBRAANTHIRI, AGED 29 YEARS, EMBRAANTHIRI,
VRIKSATTU MADOM, VRINDAVAN, POOPBATHY P.O.
SADUNGALLOOR, YTARISSUR 88¢ 739}.

a SATHEE DEVT, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. LATE SANKARAN
EMBRAANTHIRY, VARIKKATTU MADOM, VRINDAVAN PODPPATHY
P.O. KADUNGALOOR THRISSUR 686 733,
(REPRESENTED BY HER SON SSEERAJ. S. , SYD. LATE
SANAKARAN EMBRAANTHIRT, VRIKKATTU MADOM, VRINDAVAN,
POOPPATHY P,Q. KADUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR 680 733).

Ge

SREERAI. S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE SANKARAN
EMBRAANTNIRI, VARIKKATTU MADIM, VRINDAVAN RBOOPPATRY
P.O. KADUNGALOOR THRISSUR GSO 733,

BY ADV SRI. RAMESH .P

THES MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 

MAT_APREAL NO. 85 OF 2020

kok

JUDGMENT

A, Muhamed Mustaque, ]

Tals appeal arises from a fuddgment dismissing a petition tor divorce Med by the appellant-husband. Pending appeal, the parties have resolved their dispute and decided to separate the marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, a joint petition for divorce has been filed before this Court vide LA No.1 of 2021. A petition for watving the six months cooling off period also has been filed as LA No.2 of 2021.

& The parties are living separately for six years. The divorce petition was originally filed by the husband in the year =OUS. The parties appeared through online and we interacted with them. The learned counsel appearing for them identified both the parties.

3. Inthe light of the fact that the divorce petition itself was filed in the year 2015, we find that the six months cooling off period can be waived. In the light of interaction we grant a

decree of divorce. Accordingly, the marriage solemnized

MAT.APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2020

between fhe appellant and the respondent on 23.05.2010 is cissolved by a decree of divorce. The compromise agreement produced alone with LA Nel ef 2021 will form part of the

judgement

The Mat. Appeal is disposed of as above.

Si.

&MUNAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

SOPHY THOMAS

TUERRE

BEFOR THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNARULAN

LA. No. gf S021

Mat. Appeal No. 65/2020

Virco AN. & another oo... Petitioners Ve.

Nib. Wve b everett es SEES POR eN f

AFFIDAVIT

Vinod ALN., Ager 40 ve S/o. Late Narayaruan

Narbaothiry, Adi Mana Kadunpaloar, U

College P.O. Abuyvs, Rrnakularm-( Li de hereby

solemmiy affirm and state as folie

1, JPam the 18 petitioner in the above LA. [ know the

facts of the case and am campetent ta swear on this

S. The above LA. is Ried by both petitioners praying for

a dissolution of marriage between the petitioners by

+ x

mito) corsent.

s PIE Se REE Cues EN IES Qe ey toe 4 ' ney oy ake Bey bee ee a The petitioners have been living separately since

24 /O8 2015 ancd a

read that we have not been able to live

re a

fagether as husband ard wife. So for the better future of both the petitioners if is agreed between the parties to get

the mharrl cissaived by a decres of divorce by maubual

CON ESETEL,

Het, 4 %, Y ancestor!

tend

4 AVY 9% opera dewey erye hee Fe every py FQ yf Fi a. AN the avermients in paragraph > - PS of u Eee

ition may be treated as the part and pares! of this affidavit. All the averments in the petition are true and

correct,

5. The petition may be allowed as prayed for, as otherwise the petitioners would be put to irreparabic loss

and InfUries.

ae faeks stated above are true and correct t the

best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Dated this the 2G" day of October, SQ:

Vinod A.N Deponent

Selemniy affirmed and signed before me who is y known to re Cetaber, ROS in mo office af Erna

x2 &

BEFOR THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNARULAM

3A. No. ; ar S081 im

Mat. Appeal No, 85/2020

POY oe. Petitioners

veces ese v er tae eaves gersea nese eee ss RO SPOT ETE

VYinad AN. & ane

1, Anta Sankar, aged SOQ vears, D/o. Late Sankaran

Smbranthiri, Vartikkattu Madom. Vroidavan, Pooppathy

ev eede ORS Whe ged oer ee Fe CPR fox Pq oe rea b\ ye aVyawepes bye a PES y Post, & Piyrigsiar-5S0O ¢S3. do hereby saigrminivy atfirrri

anc state as follows:

ancl:

'news,

am the 26 petitioner in the above LA. [ kmow the

facts af the case and atm comipctenl ta swear on ths

ae The above LA. is Aled by both petihnoners praying bor

a disselitien of marriage between the petihoners by

TTA consent.

bean fving separately sines

a8 /GS/2015 and agreed thatwe have not been able to live

Soave diyyne es P oeseaed vets Ri fegga Bk ae £ seek ont LURE LEY as Nusband arvl wife. Se for the better future af

"he

both the petitioners it is agreed between the parties ta get the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual

OFESENL.

4, All the avermenta in paragragh 1 ~ 18 ef

petition may be treated as the part and parcel of this affidavit. All the averments in the pelition are truc and

OOPTect.

S. The petitien may be allowed as prayed for, as otherwise the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss

and inparies,

The facts stated above are true and correet to the

best of my knowledge, information and beltef,

Anila Sa nkar Pec OT me

solemmniy afi med and signed before mec who if personally known ia me on this

October, SO21 in my office at Ernakulam.

wae

LA. No. / fagR1 in Mat. Appeal Ne. 35/2020

Petitioners /Apocllant {Respondent

ats years, S/o, Late Narayanan Ne amboothir,

nO}

Mana illom, Bast Ce geloor, LC, College PLO., eecer

Anil Se rosary,

ars, O/o. Late Sankaran Embranthiri, Varikkatte Madom, Vrindavan, Fooopathy Post, Mala, Thrissur-fS0 7a3.

1. The petitioners are Hindus, husband and wife and

belonging to the Brahmin Community. Their marriage was

one ER FAS POT at the ewotidanees af the an 23/08/2010 at the residence of the peiiierer as per the Hirsiu Rites & Customs. Phe x Sh Py oy ag SS NER Qh CFF ee Fy gren ed my ib SN EAPRY > seat es ee oy y eye MATES? Was Tf PISUGY OQ SLOSS guion Ey WHIP? UFR Laban

Registrar under the Hincu Marra

vpn et Dey esde ws see ry dy coh ahd URE ot Fyeysass vor eae an PEE ET PTS apy wecdioch a male chin was born to he pehtieners an

Oil and the childlis 10 years old naw. After the

awe) {agaih set

wot ns we oe n ,

marriage both the petiticners were residing at

matrimonial harmic of the DS petitioner.

ee The petitioners state and admit that due ta

Taek

irreconcilable ifererices and compatibility of temperaments they are living separately from 24% Aupust, S018. The efforts made by the elders, friends and well- wishers to resolve the disputes and differences between the petitioners did not weld any fruits. There is absolutely no shance of re-union between the petitioners rae petitioners know that thelr marriage is irretrievably broken down and there are no chances of re-union te lead a happy muarried life. Hence the petitioners have decided to get the

TERAYY LEB dissolved | FY shecree of clivorce.

3. The 18 petitioner had filed a petition for dissolution

of marriage before the Hon ble Family Court, Ernakulam

rrumbered as O.P, No. 1866/2015. The Hon'ble faruly

Court, Ernakulam dismissed the case of the 1' petitioner

and the is petitioner had Med this Matrimonial Appeal,

Mat Appeal Na. 25/202

- BMA A

' > .

AMY, : 4 eX Ase me x "ks hk ANS

Judicial First

vinfence & RAISE

LS petitioner numbered as M.C, No. 4/2015, The case

was partly allowed by the Hen'ble Judicial Pirst Class

Ceurt, Abava were the 2nt petitioner had

: Mek, hae Sosy gee the NHan'ble Sesstums Cour

PERS

2020. The

tt eh

aisa fed a case for maintenance

S. Phe 298 pet

before the Hon'ble Family Court, Ernakulam under

3 oh x

ofthe Cr. Pic. and the case is numbered

MLC. Na The case is stil pendine. The See

geuboner aise fil

mjunction restraining the

im alienating the properties

Smnakulam and

we oni ped om

inated, ~ "~ so eet :

nod on # oe Fes on eS et ioe bee shot rg

ry Sen het on heme oy ¥ '

the case is ramberecl as GLP. No. OEF2 1,

petitioners preferred to

ANY h "h NS adeer\S BS alt a

and in a mediation and conciliation privately im the

presence of the relatives of the petifioners, as the

capa

'ois irrecoverable

on™

marriage is stramed and t) breakdown of marriage, During the course of the mediation and the ceancilatien, both the petitioners resolved the disputes and decided to disseive the

marriage by accepting past, present and fiature

MaMTGnance,

7, The TS petitioner hereby aprees to transfer the }e we AS

. Above, Ernakulam described

property at

ered

3 Sehechtie property In O.P. Na. 462/202) wilh an

poet

extend of 1S cents and a fwo storied residential budding warth Rs. SO Lakhs jointly ta the 25¢ potitioner and the

minor child. Therefore, they will have absolute tile and

ewnership over this property. The petitioner had

agreed fo receive the sai perty in feu of ary

presemt ar future man

already transferred on

S. The 1S petitioner hereby agrecs to pay Rs. SOCK) /-

per north ta the 2e¢ petitioner's account monthiy for

gy XN rng? » =~ Ae}

gh 3 " LASS =~ aS

oe ws

Thi

x wo

dinar child

Vr EYE

* Ae at

mz of t

ove

Reece

Ane

sald.

vt e

She minor

fot

wy RF yer yee However,

tae

ved

Avent hild.

y ater

x y f oa REate ayy ot ay ress th ext t} NBOCRYUL GAL SRE DR EAST A LEER RE

£ 3P

be k

ack TeCe!

€

ey £

thiy ones f

a ae qs met pies steed a fet a re

re a

ame on beha

x £

n> ix}

Ee:

BRIISE fac

a &

Senet bet is

t, at

the

POPES

i® petitioner is i hosur

ive the

ie d.

aN a

A pereorer, Wh

<y ck x

Pe eS

ue bon "int

AY!

rist for maintenance

already

TREE furhure §

12. As beth the petitioners, state and agree that they da not have any claims over the moveable and immovable assets belonging te each other either existing or to be

acquired in future.

138. As both the petitioners, declare that they have no

oh gat

gainst each other iy

claim of any nature whatsoever a;

future.

id It is most respectfully subnoiiited thal, the "ee

petitioner will withdraw the Criminal Appeal No.

236 (2020, percing before the Han'bie sessions Court,

Peravoor, Ernakulam. The 2=¢ pethhoner will withdraw

the mainicnance case, numbered as Mal. No. 244 £20

before the Han'ble FParuly Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner will withdraw the partition and the mpunction case nunmivered as OF. No. 462/202) betore the Non

Family Court, Ermakulhs?

1S. As both the petitioners mentioned m the Petition

ither orally ar expressiy have arrived at the settioment

or their gen ell and wish.

A eg

wee coon aad

ae hm io ie

pRMUIHONeETsS

As the

Ue,

marital reia between

oeey