IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 33 of 2006() --------------------------- OP.944/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SHIJI THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. THOMAS, KARATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUNDIYAPPALI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, T.V.THOMAS. 2. T.V. THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE VARKEY -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SUNNY GEORGE, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHEERANCHIRA P.O., CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 2. GEORGE ABRAHAM, F/O. SUNNY GEORGE, -DO-. ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, ALONG WITH MA NO.93 OF 2006. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mat.Appeal Nos. 33 and 93 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., I.A. No. 816 of 2011 is the joint compromise petition filed by the appellants and respondents under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. in Mat. Appeal No. 33 of 2006. 2. It is stated in the joint compromise petition that the above Mat.Appeals can be disposed of on the basis of the compromise. 3. Accordingly we dispose of Mat.Appeal Nos. 33 and 93 of 2006 on the basis of the compromise petition as evidenced from the joint petition filed by the parties. The impugned order will subsequently stand set aside. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ The words “order” and “subsequently” occuring in lines 3 and 4 respectively of paragraph 3 of the common judgment dated :2: 21.3.2011 in Mat. App. Nos.33 of 2006 and 93 of 2006 are corrected and substituted as “judgment” and “consequently” respectively vide order dated 25.5.2011 in I.A. No.1138 of 2011. sd/- Registrar(Judicial)