IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 253 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.126/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------- 1. BABY SHAJU SIMON @ BABY SAJU SIMON, CHUNGATH HOUSE,PALAZHI P.O.,CALICUT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ON HSBC BANK, FUJAIRAH, U.A.E.PO BOX-21,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SMT.ADLINE EVANJELINE SIMON,@ JAYA SIMON,W/O LATE C.J.SIMON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, PALAZHI P.O., CALICUT. 2. ADLINE EVANJELINE SIMON @ JAYA SIMON, 55 YEARS W/O LATE C.J.SIMON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, PALAZHI P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENT: PETITIONER -------------------------------- SAJITHA ANN THOMAS, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.M.C.THOMAS MATTATHIL HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM WORKING AS A SALES EXECUTIVE WITH A1- WAHAD EXPRESS LIC SHARJA, UAE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO.255 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.No.1180/07 IN MAT.A.NO.253/07 //DISMISSED// SD/- R.BASANT, JUDGE 01.07.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Dsn TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal Nos.253 and 255 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. These appeals arises from a common order passed by the Family Court in two O.Ps. filed by the respondent/wife – first,for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the second for recovery of amounts from the husband. Both matters were taken up together for consideration and were disposed of by the Family Court by a common order. That common order was passed ex parte by the Family Court. The appellant herein filed application to set aside the ex parte order. But, that petition was also dismissed. Divorce has been granted and a direction for payment of amounts have been issued. 2. Arguments were advanced before us. Various contentions were raised. Parties were referred to the Mediator. Attempts of the Mediator did not succeed. After arguments are commenced, there has been a detailed discussion at the Bar. The parties appear to have come to a settlement of their disputes. Counsel submits that Mat.Appeal No.255/07 can now be dismissed as not pressed. The appellant accepts the decree for divorce. Mat.A.Nos.253 & 255/07 -2- 3. In Mat.Appeal No.253/07, the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife accept that the impugned order can be set aside. That is how the parties have chosen to settle their disputes. 4. We accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife. We are satisfied that these appeals can now be disposed of as agreed by the parties and on the basis of the representations of the counsel for the parties. Necessary endorsements have been made by the learned counsel on the order sheet maintained by this Court. 5. In the result: (a) Mat.Appeal No.255/07 is dismissed and the impugned decree for divorce is upheld. (b) Mat.Appeal No.253/07 is allowed as agreed. The impugned order directing the appellant to make payments is set aside. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn