Sreedevi Sasi vs Shiju K. Raghavan
2025 Latest Caselaw 9640 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sreedevi Sasi vs Shiju K. Raghavan on 13 October, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                    &

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

     MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947

                      MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2020 IN OP NO.170 OF 2017 OF

                           FAMILY COURT, PALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SREEDEVI SASI, AGED 31 YEARS
            D/O.SASI, KARUTHARAYIL HOUSE, PAROTHODU PANCHAYAT,
            KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPILLY
            TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 518.

            BY ADV SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       SHIJU K. RAGHAVAN, AGED 34 YEARS
            S/O.K.G.RAGHAVAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O.,
            KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 516.

    2       K.G.RAGHAVAN, AGED 64 YEARS
            (FATHER OF 1ST RESPONDENT), KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 516.

    3       SUMATHY RAGHAVAN, AGED 60 YEARS
            (MOTHER OF 1ST RESPONDENT), KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 516.

            SHIJU K. RAGHAVAN, (PARTY-IN-PERSON)


     THIS    MATRIMONIAL   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   HEARING   ON
13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:75787


MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

                                  2


                              JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant alleges that the judgment of the learned

Family Court, Pala, in OP No.170/2017, is illegal, unlawful and

unsustainable.

2. Sri.Julian Xavier J. - appearing for the appellant,

explained that his client filed the Original Petition seeking return

of her gold and patrimony from the first respondent herein; but

that, after the learned Family Court made some observations on

the merits of the matter, it dismissed the same, finding it to be

not maintainable for the sole reason that his client had earlier

filed OP No.680/2013 before the said Court and had withdrawn it,

as evident from Ext.B4 judgment.

3. Sri.Julian Xavier J. argued that, even a cursory glance

through Ext.B4 judgment would render it limpid that OP

No.680/2013 had been withdrawn by his client solely because the

parties then started to live together after compromising all their

disputes; but that subsequently, the first respondent filed OP

No.335/2015 seeking divorce, thus giving his client a fresh cause

of action to approach the learned Family Court again. He 2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

contended that, therefore, the judgment in question is flawed and

vitiated; praying that it be set aside.

4. Sri.Shiju K.Raghavan - first respondent appearing in

person, however, submitted that when the appellant had

withdrawn OP No.680/2013 without citing any reason, it has to be

presumed that all the gold ornaments were either with her, or

that she had no case as impelled by her. He contended that,

when the said Original Petition had been withdrawn in such

manner, a fresh Original Petition could not have been filed and

that it is hit by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code

of Civil Procedure (CPC), especially because the afore said

Original Petition had been withdrawn without seeking any liberty

to be reserved to file a fresh one.

5. Sri.Shiju K.Raghavan thereafter submitted that it is

true that, even before Ext.B4 judgment had been delivered on

17.02.2014, the parties had started living together as husband

and wife from 19.01.2014. He further conceded that they

continued such life for a few months thereafter, but that the

matrimonial disputes again arose, consequent to which, he was

constrained to sue the appellant for divorce through OP

No.335/2015. He argued that this, however, would not change 2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

the tenor of the earlier compromise between the parties and

hence that the learned Family Court has not committed any error.

He, consequently, prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and

notice that, as correctly argued by Sri.Julian Xavier, though the

learned Court peripherally went into the merits of the contentions

of the parties, it did not answer any of them specifically, but

finally dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that it is

barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. For this, the learned

Court relied upon Ext.B4 judgment, to hold that when an earlier

Original Petition - namely OP No.680/2013 - had been withdrawn,

a fresh Original Petition based on the same cause of action cannot

be filed.

7. On fundamental principles, no doubt, Order XXIII Rule

1(3) bars further litigation on causes of action that have been

compromised and settled.

8. However, in the case at hand, when one reads Ext.B4,

it rendered ineluctable that OP No.680/2013 had been withdrawn

not based on any settlement between the parties qua the gold or

the patrimony in question, but because they had started to live

together. In fact, even before Ext.B4 had been issued on 2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

17.02.2014, it is expressly conceded by Sri.Shiju K.Raghavan -

first respondent appearing in person, that he and the appellant

had rejoined in matrimony on 19.01.2014 and continued such

status at least for a few months thereafter.

9. Pertinently, it is expressly admitted by Sri.Shiju

K.Raghavan that, after he and the appellant lived together for few

months after 19.01.2014, disputes again arose between them and

that he filed OP No.335/2015 seeking divorce from her.

10. As we have indicated above, in Ext.B4, the learned

Court has only recorded that, since the parties have settled the

cases between them and started to live together, the Original

Petition was withdrawn as not being pressed. When there is no

reference to the patrimony or the gold in the said judgment, the

withdrawal of the case for the reason that the wife thought that

she would be able to live in matrimony with her husband cannot

be pressed against her, so as to attract the rigor of Order XXIII

Rule 1(3) of the CPC.

11. To paraphrase, this is not a case where the reliefs

sought for in OP No.680/2013 had been either decided or

withdrawn as being not pressed, but, by then, the parties had

started living together, consequent to which a litigation between 2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

them while living as husband and wife became untenable. We

are, therefore, of the firm view that the rigor of Order XXIII Rule

1(3) of the CPC would not act against the appellant; and that the

matter ought to have been decided by the learned Family Court

on its merits.

12. In such perspective, we are persuaded to remit the

matter to the learned Family Court, Pala, for a disposal of the

matter on its merits, but without being fettered by Order XXIII

Rule 1(3) of the CPC.

13. We, consequently, allow this appeal and set aside the

judgment in question; with a resultant direction to the learned

Family Court to dispose of OP No.170/2017 on its merits, after

affording necessary opportunities to both sides - including to lead

additional evidence or to produce additional documents, if they

are so interested - as expeditiously as is possible, but without any

avoidable delay.

14. We clarify that we have not entered into the merits of

any other rival contentions, except to the extent to which we have

dealt with the above and that all of them are left open to be

impelled, pursued and decided by the learned Family Court as per

law.

2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

To obtain expeditious compliance of our directions above,

we direct the parties to appear before the learned Family Court at

11 a.m. on 29.10.2025.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu 2025:KER:75787

MAT.APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 314/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRL.M.C.1561/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A2 COPY OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT EXHIBITS DATED 07.07.2016 FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN, IN CRL.M.C.1561/2016 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 IN

Annexure A4 OFFICE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

-I, KOTTAYAM WHICH IS NUMBERED AS

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.818/2016 OF PAMPADY POLICE STATION Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.AS01/17 DATED 18.12.2017 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1(a) Certified copy of the divorce petition filed by the 1st respondent before family

ANNEXURE R1(b) A Copy of the report submitted by the Pampady S.I to the Kottayam District Police Chief providing this has been obtained through RTI Act ANNEXURE R1(c) Certified copy of the judgment in C C 1665/14 on the file of JFMC -1, Kottayam ANNEXURE R1(d) Certified copy of the judgment in OP