IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 798 of 2009()
1. BINDHU KUNHIPARAMBATH,
... Petitioner
2. K.MADHAVAN MARAR,KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
Vs
1. C.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.MADHAVA MARAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
For Respondent :SRI.P BABUKUMAR [CAVEATOR]
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved
by the impugned order passed by the Family Court under Sec.12
of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the marriage which was
solemnized on 23/4/08 between the 1st appellant and the
respondent was declared to be null and void. The counter claim
was dismissed by the said impugned order.
2. After the parties appeared before this Court, the parties
were referred for mediation. Before the Mediator the parties
settled their disputes. A joint statement has been filed by the
parties duly countersigned by their counsel and the same will be
annexed to the appellate decree. All the disputes between the
parties were settled. Gold ornaments, amounts, articles etc.,
specified in the joint statement were returned by the respondent
to the appellants. Receipt of the same is acknowledged. It was
Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 2
agreed that the marriage shall be dissolved. It was further
agreed that the parties shall have no claims against each other.
3. On receipt of the report of the Mediator enclosing the
joint statement, counsel were requested to enlighten the Court
as to what further steps they contemplated in pursuance of the
joint statement. We queried so because we found that the first
term of settlement is that “the parties hence agreed to dissolve
marriage solemnized on 23/4/08”. What is the process of
dissolution which they have contemplated, it was queried. The
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal
can be dismissed now upholding the impugned order. The
learned counsel for the appellants was not clear as to the nature
of the procedure that ought to be followed. We accordingly
directed parties to appear before this Court. The learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that if the appellants
would so insist, the respondent is willing to file an application for
dissolution of marriage under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act
in view of the imprecise manner in which the joint statement was
drafted. It was accordingly that the parties were directed to
appear before this Court. On 22/11/10, on 23/11/10 and on
Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 3
24/11/10 to which days the case was adjourned, the appellants
have not chosen to appear before this Court though the
respondent was personally present. We look at the plight of the
respondent who accepting the terms of the settlement has
already performed his part of the obligation under the joint
statement. The appellants have not chosen to come before this
Court to prosecute this appeal or to take any further steps which
they may have contemplated when they signed the joint
statement dated 14/10/10. We note that the joint statement has
been prepared and signed by the parties with due assistance of
the counsel.
4. It is true that the joint statement does not mention
anything as to how this appeal is to be dealt with. We are,
however, satisfied in the circumstance of this case that this
appeal can now be dismissed for non prosecution and that
appears to us to be the soul of the agreement between the
parties. The inability of the appellants to appear before this
Court despite specific directions further points to the fact that
they also want the matter to be disposed of.
Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 4
5. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal for non
prosecution accepting the joint statement between the parties,
which shall be appended to the decree.
R. BASANT
(Judge)
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/