Kerala High Court
Sreejith vs Dr.Sudhina on 9 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2018 IN O.P.NO.414 OF 2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/S:
SREEJITH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA
HOUSE, PATTURAIKKAL P.O., PATTURAICKAL DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 022.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
DR. SUDHINA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.BHARATHAN,
MALAPPURATH HOUSE, NAGALASSERY P.O., KOOTTANADU,
NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679 533.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.12.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.222/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2018 IN O.P.NO.415 OF 2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/S:
SREEJITH, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA HOUSE, PATTURAIKKAL P.O.,
PATTURAICKAL DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR-680 022.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUDHEENA M.B, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.BHARATHAN, MALAPPURATH HOUSE, NAGALASSERY P.O.,
KOOTTANAD, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM,
PALAKKAD-679 533.
2 BHARATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, MALAPPURATH HOUSE,
NAGALASSERY P.O., KOOTTANAD, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 533.
3
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
3 SUJATHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.BHARATHN, MALAPPURATH
HOUSE, NAGALASSERY P.O., KOOTTANAD, NAGALASSERY
VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 533.
BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.12.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.221/2018, 224/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO.224 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2018 IN O.P.NO.413 OF 2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/S:
1 SREEJITH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA
HOUSE, PATTURAIKKAL P.O., PATTURAICKAL DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-
680022.
2 RAVEENDRAN, S/O. AYYAPPAKUTTY, KOLLARA HOUSE,
PATTURAIKKAL P.O., PATTURAICKAL DESOM, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680022.
3 MEERA RAVEENDRAN, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA HOUSE,
PATTURAIKKAL P.O., PATTURAICKAL DESOM, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680022.
4 JIJITH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA HOUSE,
PATTURAIKKAL P.O., PATTURAICKAL DESOM, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680022.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
5
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
RESPONDENT/S:
DR.SUDHINA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. BHARATHAN,
MALAPPURATH HOUSE, NAGALASSERY P.O., KOOTTANADU,
NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679533.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.12.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.222/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2018 IN O.P.NO.412 OF 2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/S:
SREEJITH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KOLLARA
HOUSE, PATTURAIKKAL.P.O.THRISSUR- 680 022
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
SUDHEENA M.B., AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.BHARATHAN, MALAPPURATH HOUSE, NAGALASSERY.P.O.,
KOOTTANADU, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD- 679 533
BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.12.2022, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.222/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Since common issues are involved, these appeals are heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018:- The appellant-husband is the
respondent in O.P.No.414 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court,
Ottappalam, a petition filed by the respondent herein-wife for
restitution of conjugal right. The Family Court allowed the said original
petition and granted a decree of restitution of conjugal right by the
judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018. Challenging the judgment
and decree dated 08.01.2018 of the Family Court, Ottappalam in
O.P.No.414 of 2017, the appellant has approached this Court in this
appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984.
2.1. On 20.02.2018, when this appeal came up for admission,
this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the
respondent. In I.A.No.702 of 2018, this Court stayed the operation of
the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018 in O.P.No.414 of 2017, for
a period of three months and the appeal was ordered to be listed along
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
with the connected cases. On 25.07.2018, the interim order granted
on 20.02.2018 was extended until further orders.
3. Mat.Appeal No.222 of 2018:- The appellant-husband is the
petitioner in O.P.No.415 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court,
Kannur, seeking return of gold ornaments and amount from the
respondents. By the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018, the
Family Court dismissed the said original petition. Challenging the said
judgment and decree, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal,
invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984.
3.1. On 20.02.2018, when this appeal came up for admission,
this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the
respondents.
4. Mat.Appeal No.224 of 2018:- The appellants are the
respondents in O.P.No.413 of 2017 before the Family Court, a petition
filed by the respondent herein-wife seeking return of gold ornaments
and amount. By the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018, the
Family Court allowed the said original petition by directing the 2nd and
3rd appellants to return 141 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value,
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
i.e., Rs.30,90,720/- to the respondent herein and the 2nd appellant
was directed to return Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent herein,
together with 6% interest from the date of the judgment till
realisation. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellants
are before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
4.1 On 20.02.2018, when this appeal came up for admission,
this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the
respondents. In I.A.No.706 of 2018, this Court stayed the operation of
the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018 in O.P.No.413 of 2017 for
a period of three months on condition of the appellants furnishing
security for the decree debt, to the satisfaction of the court below,
within six weeks. On 25.07.2018, the interim order granted on
20.02.2018 was extended until further orders.
5. Mat.Appeal No.225 of 2018:- The appellant-husband is the
petitioner in O.P.No.412 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court,
Kannur, seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife on
the ground of cruelty. By the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018,
the Family Court dismissed the said original petition. Challenging the
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
said judgment and decree, the appellant is before this Court in this
appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984.
5.1. On 20.02.2018, when this appeal came up for admission,
this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the
respondents.
6. On 30.09.2022, when these Mat.Appeals came up for
consideration, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that
mediation talks are going on and therefore, the appeals may be
referred for mediation. By the order dated 30.09.2022, both parties
were directed to appear before the Nodal Officer, Ernakulam Mediation
Centre, in the premises of this Court on 12.10.2022 at 10.15 a.m.
7. On 10.11.2022, when these appeals came up for further
consideration, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that in
terms of the settlement agreement, the appellants have to make
payment by 09.12.2022. Hence the appeals were ordered to be listed
today (09.12.2022) for appearance of the parties.
8. The parties have settled the disputes in mediation and a
memorandum of settlement dated 09.11.2022 entered into between
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
the parties is placed on record along with the report of the Mediator.
In terms of the settlement, the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife in Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018 have filed I.A.No.1 of
2022, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a
decree of divorce by mutual consent, for dissolving their marriage
solemnised on 02.01.2014, at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. They
have also filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Section 13B(2) of the said Act,
seeking an order to waive the cooling period of six months in
considering the application for divorce on mutual consent.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-husband and
his parents and also the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.
10. The Apex Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
[2017 (8) SCC 746] considered whether it is mandatory in all cases
to wait for the statutory period under Section 13B(2) of the Act before
allowing divorce on mutual consent. It was held that the provision was
discretionary and not mandatory. The Apex Court held that the period
can be waived if the Court is satisfied after considering the following:
'i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section
13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under
Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
the first motion itself;
ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms
of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9
of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and
there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further
efforts;
iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including
alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between
the parties;
iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.'
11. Today when these matters are taken up for consideration,
we have interacted with the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018, a joint petition filed under Section 13B of
the Act. They have stated in categorical terms that the entire disputes
between them have already been settled, and they have consented for
a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The appellant and the
respondent are living separately from the year 2017 onwards. Since
the parties have genuinely settled their disputes in mediation and
since they are living separately from the year 2017 onwards, we find
that the cooling period of six months provided under Section 13B(2) of
the Act will only prolong their agony. Therefore, we are satisfied that
this is a fit case in which without waiting for the statutory period of six
months under Section 13B(2) of the Act, the parties can be granted a
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
decree of divorce by mutual consent. In such circumstances, I.A.No.2
of 2022 in Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018 is allowed by waiving the
statutory period of six months provided under Section 13B(2) of the
Act and I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018 is allowed by
granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of
the Act, by dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant-
husband and respondent-wife in Mat.Appeal No.221 of 2018 on
02.01.2014 at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur.
In the above circumstances, these appeals are disposed of in
terms of the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of
agreement dated 09.11.2022, which shall form part of this judgment.
In view of the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022, the marriage solemnised
between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife in Mat.Appeal
No.221 of 2018 on 02.01.2014 at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur, is
dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
bkn/-
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
Mat.Appeal Nos.222, 221,
224 and 225 of 2018
