Bindu Varghese vs Varghese.P.Manoj on 22 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat.Appeal.No. 483 of 2008()


1. BINDU VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE.P.MANOJ,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VARGHESE.P.MANOJ, PUTHENCAVIL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON

                For Respondent  :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      Mat. Appeal No. 483 of 2008
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The parties have already settled their disputes in the presence of a

Conciliator appointed by the court and an application has been filed,

incorporating the terms of the settlement. In the said compromise

petition/agreement, which was presented on 12-12-2009, both contestants

have signed and the agreement/petition is counter-signed by their counsel

and also the Mediator.

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, both parties are

present and they are represented by their counsel. It is submitted that an

amount of Rs.5 lakhs is being handed over to the appellant and that an

amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been deposited in the name of the child and the

said Fixed Deposit shall be handed over today. In these circumstances, the

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not pressing

this appeal and the appeal may be dismissed upholding the impugned order.

3. Though in the agreement it is stated that a fresh petition for

divorce by mutual consent shall be filed, the said term is modified and it is

now agreed that this appeal can be dismissed as not pressed, thereby

accepting the termination of the marriage between the parties. Subject to the

said modification, the terms in the compromise agreement entered into in

the presence of the Conciliator are accepted.

Mat.A.483/08 2

4. We are satisfied that the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the appeal can now be dismissed as not pressed to facilitate

immediate acceptance of the termination of the mutual tie.

4. Accordingly:-

a) This appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

b) The compromise petition/agreement, duly signed by the

parties and counter-signed by their counsel as also the

Mediator presented on 12-12-2009 shall be appended to

this appellate decree.

R. BASANT, JUDGE.

M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE.

Mn.