Kerala High Court
Sujeesh vs Dhanya on 18 September, 2025
Mat.A No.1013 of 2024 2025 : KER: 69953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RERALA AT E AKtJLAI4
PRESENT
TI]E HONoURABLE idR. dusTICE DEVAN RAMncHziNDRmi
a
THE HONouRABLE res. JusTICE M.B. sNEHAIATm
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTREER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
mT.AppEAI. No. 1013 oF 2024
AGENST TRE JUDGD4ENT IN OP NO.85 0F 2022 0F FAMIIiY
couRT , KUNNabncuLAM
APPEIIIIANT/PETITIONER
SUJRESH ,
ACID 38 yEARs s/O JuidELanlvREFTIL SUBRAHMANIAN,
mGAI>IVRETTII, , rolAILAiou p. o. ,
EDAPPEL VII.LACE , PONNANI TAliuK,
imlAppuRae4 DlsTRlcT, plN - 679576
BY ADVS .
SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K.
SHRI . DHaENeAy DREPAK
SMI.ADrmm p.R.
SEIRI. KEvlN RENro
RESPONDENT /RES PONDENT :
DHANYA, AGED 34 YEARS
D/O KUTTyERlv=EFTII, DARInpAILAN , yt7RKul.AM
DEsOM, yuRIculnM vlLI,ACE , CHAVAKKAD TAI,uK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679561
BY Ays.
SRI . K . K . DREERENDRAEml sHiqAN
SMT . N . p . asIA
SRI. pRAMrl paul vAZHzipplLliY
THls mTRIMONlzil, AppEAI, HAVING cond up ron HEARING CIN
18.og.2o25, THE CouRT oN TRE sinG DAY DELlvERED THE
FOLLC-G:
Mat.A No.1013 of 2024 2025 : KER: 69953
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
~~-,11,11,I-------I-,Ill,I-I1111-I-I-------
Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2024
-I-,-111-,11,I,-I-11111--I--I,I--111,111111
Dated, this the 18th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
Today, when this appeal came up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the entire disputes
between the. parties have been settled and a joint petition and
memo'randum Of settlerrient agreement have been filed before this
`` `. `-`. ` A
`i
Court.
2. We have examined the I.oint petition and
memorandum of settlement agreement and we notice that it has
been signed by the parties and subscribed by their counsel. The
terms of the joint petition are lawful and therefore, the settlement
arrived at by the parties is accepted.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at by the parties,
appellant and respondent have filed a petition under Section 138
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage
by mutual consent.
5. Both parties `have affirmed that the entire disputes
Mat.A No.1013 of 2024 2025 : KER: 69953
between the parties have been settled in terms of the joint petition
filed by the parties.
6, We are convinced that the marriage between the
spouses who are Hindus has been irretrievably broken down and
there is no possibility of reunion and divorce is the viable option
and all the attempts of reunion have been failed. We are also
convinced that the parties have voluntarily filed the petition under
Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act and there is no collusion
between the parties.
7. We are of the view that this is a fit case to grant
divorce by mutual consent on the application filed under Section
138 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. In view of the settlement, the application filed under
Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual
consent is allowed and the marriage between the appellant and
the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with
effect from today. Mat.A No.1013/2024 is disposed of as above.
9. The parties are directed to act implicitly in terms of
the j.oint petition and memorandum of settlement and shall comply
Mat.A No.1013 of 2024 2025 : KER: 69953
all the terms therein, which do form part of the judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/.
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
IA 1/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 1013/2024-Petition (Page-1)
BEF®u!rs rml:E H®INSffi¥RE HIGH G®uHT ®F KHK±aLhA £
EENREELAV
LAN®* ` ®f £®3S
im
REatrfup#eat EN# : 1013 Of 2®34
asp
L Sunjeestry aged #4 ¥*5mrs S/® Amt3adiveetil §ufroraunanian* ArmtiadiveetiL
KoiatamtitS SOS E£#ppeal Vlhage, Pomnahi ¥thluk, Malaptirarm "istrfet -
$7es76
2* E}hanyfty aged 41 years, Bfo Kuttyeriveettfl rmaprhan, yuckutam
B€asrem, Pumltfl:}ruhaulam Vitilage, €havakekd "tlk, Thrissur District -
S¥sel
REPGREERT
Nil
ds per the reed ion dated
se{tlermem ®m REllowiHg. tgr
i} The ELppetlaEL€ is 'the ls\fi
Mat.Appeal, Both hcteng t® the HiHidH rersgiCiH. Their mandagg wELf
solemnined undgr Hindu rituals and rites on 13.®6,2$13. The Appelld"
Sn the #fae"ndg oJ d€s¥res®n had fiJgd for divorce a n the H®n'tife Famtry
€©ult* Kunnarmkuham as OP 85/3022. £t was dismissed and thus
MatAppeal 1$1Bra®24 was filed. Tine respenderlt had filed ®P gor2922
F®r retur" ®f g$1d rand M€ 3Ora®33 for fflains€ELam€e iffl the RESn'ble
gram fly Goult* K"ren&fflk"lam and i* was am@wed. Aggrieved fry this
FS0 VERIFIED -31
IA 1/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 1013/2024-Petition (Page-2)
REffi£.jfty>pffgffii 1SS&ma5£4 grffids R`p€EL"} 436;28¥4 is f31ed xpifei#it is peffidiing
ifeef®re this RICRE' ifelg €4®ur&
2} Im the ,Mediati©n hutd ffiffi 1?so9/3@2S in Meat.Appeal 1013/a®24 frotlt
pareies are agFaed, f®g di¥®re€ 3md €d# ifee #£*nged. The rmediStit3fl
&greeffleRE€ fflade betwe@fl the prrdas is ffFodueed herewith as fuHEHL©se.
ife.
3} Withi reg&rdes t® Mm€.rfugrB€ai Eti£8IE®34 fGr return o# g®lfi anfi rm®ney and
RP{FC*2&/2ft34 f®# rmaffitemanee win courimene. All cases pending t3gfore
the family coum and all fasedrrs m®t meffltiGmed hereiB stroll proceed.
COUNSEL FSR "EAPPLI€ANT8
EEEfiELE
FSO VERIFIED -31
IA 1/2025 IN Mat.Appeal 1013/2024-Annexure A (Page-3)
