IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, 28TH DAY OF MAY 2010/7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 13 of 2007 --------------------------- OP.19/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. JOE ISSAC, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.C.ISSAC, RESIDING AT NO.68, SARA SADANAM CIL (CQAL), SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560092. 2. K.C.ISSAC, AGED 65 YEARS, OF DO ADDRESS. 3. PONNAMMA ISSAC, AGED 55 YEARS OF DO. ADDRESS. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- JULIE YOHANNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.YOHANNAN, RESIDING AT JULIE VILLA 358, PIPE LINE, MES ROAD, BANGALORE- 560054. ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/5/2010 ALONG WITH MA NO. 14 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A. NO. 96/2007 IN MAT APPEAL NO. 13/2007 DISMISSED. SD/-R. BASANT, JUDGE SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 ============================ Dated this the 28th day of May 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The contestants are estranged spouses. Original petitions were filed by the respondent-wife for a decree for divorce and for a money decree. Objection to territorial jurisdiction was raised by the appellant-husband. An application was filed to consider the objections against territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issues. There was an admission that an amount of Rs. six lakhs is liable to be returned. That amount was not deposited as directed by the court. Trial was conducted. The appellant did not participate in the trial. In these circumstances, the court below had proceeded to pass the impugned separate orders on merits. The decree for divorce was granted and a decree for money directing payment of an amount of Rs.9.17 lakhs along with interest and costs was ordered. The appellants have challenged the said orders before this court. MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -2- 2. We heard the learned counsel. Earlier, attempts were made by reference of the parties to the mediator to settle their disputes. The disputes have not been settled. The matter has come up before us again for hearing. 3. In the course of hearing the counsel, we made certain suggestions and accordingly the parties/counsel have now come to some understanding. It is agreed that the amount of Rs. six lakhs shall be returned straightaway. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether interest and proportionate costs is also liable to be paid. But we choose to direct, not only the amount of Rs.six lakhs but the amount of Rs.six lakhs along with interest and costs must be paid as directed in the impugned order. 4. It is reported that M.C.No.1665/2005 filed by the husband/appellant before the Principal Family Court, Banglore for restitution of conjugal rights is pending. It is agreed now by the parties that all the three proceedings can be disposed of by the Family Court, Thiruvalla. They pray and agree that the time bound directions can be issued. Both parties agree that they shall jointly take steps to get M.C.No.1665/2005 pending before MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -3- the Principal Family Court, Bangalore transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The appellants shall meet all necessary expenditure for the same, they accept. 5. We do accordingly issue the following directions as agreed by the parties (notwithstanding the dispute regarding liability for payment of interest). 6. In the result, a) these appeals are allowed in part subject to conditions. b) The impugned orders shall stand set aside on condition that the appellants deposit the admitted amount of Rs.six lakhs along with interest and proportionate costs which is liable to be paid under the impugned order as on this date before the Family Court within a period of two months from this date. c) If the amount is so deposited, the Family Court shall straight away release the same to the respondent-wife. 7. The appellants agree to waive the dispute and all their objections regarding jurisdiction and concede that both O.Ps.i.e. O.P.Nos.19 & 20 of 2006 can be disposed of by the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The appellants shall take all necessary MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -4- steps to get a joint application filed before the Supreme Court at their expenses to get M.C.No.1665/2005 transferred from the Principal Family Court, Bangalore to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Such application shall also be filed immediately and emergent orders sought to ensure that the said file reaches the Family court by 2/8/2010. 8. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thiruvalla on 2/8/2010. The court below shall verify if the direction regarding deposit made as per clause (b) has been complied with. If the same has been complied with, the impugned order shall stand set aside and the court shall proceed to dispose of O.P.Nos.19 & 20 of 2006 within a period of six months from that date. If the amount is not deposited, the impugned orders shall stand revived and other directions in this judgment shall stand recalled. The Family Court shall in that event record that fact in the order sheet, whereupon the impugned orders shall revive and become enforceable. 9. We have directed the Family Court to dispose of the MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -5- matter within a period of six months accepting the submission that the application for transfer of M.C.No.1665/2005 shall be filed within a period of two months and such transfer shall materialise by that date. We need only mention that it shall be open for the Family court to apply for extension of time, if that condition is not satisfied. 10. We further direct that steps for transfer of the matter pending before the Family Court, Bangalore must be taken before 2/8/2010 and the Family Court has to be apprised of the steps taken. If the Family Court is not satisfied about the steps taken, the Family Court can proceed to dispose of O.P.Nos.19 & 20/2006 without waiting to receive the records in that M.C.No.1665/2005 on transfer. 11. Needless to say, an amount of Rs.two lakhs which is said to have been deposited can also be adjusted as on the date of deposit undern clause 5(b) towards the amounts directed to be paid under clause (b) above. MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -6- 12. We accept the request of the learned counsel for the appellants that in case they are not able to take steps for transfer of M.C.No.1665/2005 by moving the Supreme court as agreed and get orders within the stipulated period, they shall file a fresh petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Thiruvallla and in that event the same also should be disposed of along with O.P.Nos.19 & 20 of 2006 without waiting the transfer of M.C.1665/2005. Such fresh petition can be filed on or before 2/8/2010. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE MAT APPEAL NOS. 13 & 14 OF 2007 -7- There is no representation for the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent had pressed for an early hearing and the matter was posted for hearing. These appeals are, in these circumstances, dismissed for non-prosecution. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.