Gangadharan vs Princy on 12 April, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat Appeal No. 109 of 2003()


1. GANGADHARAN, KUZHINJANVILA VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRINCY, MANOHARA MANDIRAM,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VPK.PANICKER

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BHASKARAN (RETD.JUDGE)

 Dated :12/04/2007

 O R D E R

K
.JOHN MATHEW
(R
ETD. JUDGE) &

R.BHASKARAN (RETD. JUDGE)

MAT. APPEAL Nos. 109 OF 2003 & 128 OF 2003

————————————————

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2007

AWARD

K.JOHN MATHEW (Rtd. Judge)

The parties have settled both appeals on the following terms:

In Mat. Appeal No.109/2003, the appellant-petitioner(husband) is

today paying Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) by D.D. No.248409

dated 10-4-2007 on the Indian Bank, Thiruvananthapuram to the wife

(respondent) in full settlement of all her claims. The husband and wife

have filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act

agreeing for divorce. Execution in O.S.No.416 of 1999 for maintenance

is pending in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The father has

already paid the maintenance of the minor son up to 4th October, 2004.

Today father is paying the balance amount of maintenance of

Rs.16,000/- up to the date of son attaining majority namely February 15,

2006. The son will withdraw the execution petition in that O.S. By order

dated 2.4.2004 in Mat. Appeal No.109/2003 the High Court had

MA Nos. 109/2003

& 128/2003 2

directed the appellant(husband) to deposit Rs.5,000/- and permitted the

wife to withdraw that amount towards expenses. Rs.5,000/- was

deposited on 3.5.2004. The wife is allowed to withdraw the said

amount.

In view of the fact that parties are residing separately for more

than 2 years namely, 1997 on wards and they have not been able to

live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be

dissolved, the marriage between appellant Gangadharan and

respondent Princy is dissolved and Mat. Appeals are disposed of as

settled.

                                                             K.JOHN MATHEW

                                                               (RETD.  JUDGE)




               `                                                 R.BHASKARAN

                                                                (RETD. JUDGE)




jp