IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 359 of 2001() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.2769/1998 Dated 20/10/2000 .................... APPELLANT: ----------- ROY TOMLAL, S/O.(LATE) C.IDIKULA THOMAS THARAKAN (RETD.TEACHER) 'TOMLAND', HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA - 1, KOLLAM. PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AS ASSISTANT MANAGER IN THE TRACO CABLE COMPANY LIMITED, (A KERALA GOVERNMENT COMPANY) KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD OFFICE COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.) SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- MINI JOSEPH, D/O.M.S.JOSEPH, IAS (RETD) T.C.NO.10/1871, KAVELLOOR LANE, VATTIYOORKKAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-13. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY FOR R SRI.K.J.GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH FOR R THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.359 of 2001 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.2769/1998. That original petition was filed by the respondent herein for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. By the impugned judgment the original petition was allowed and hence the appeal. Since the parties have been litigating for quite long we directed the parties to be present before us in order to thrash out the possibility of a settlement between them. The parties are present before us. We also had the able assistance of Sri.M.S.Narayanan as Conciliator. Thanks to othe co-operation extended by the parties, thanks to the assistance rendered by the learned senior counsel Sri.Janardhana Kurup and Dr.Sebastian Chembapally for the respective parties and thanks to the co-operation of the parties and thanks to the strenuous efforts taken by the court, we are happy to note that the parties have entered a compromise deciding to settle the M.F.A.No.359 of 2001 -:2:- entire disputes between them. As agreed to between the parties, the appeal is disposed of as follows. 2. The present fact situation is that the respondent after divorce has remarried and she has two children in that marriage. But the appellant has not remarried yet. According to the appellant, several proposals came and one such proposal was almost on the verge of fructifying. But it was sabotaged either by the respondent or her relatives. The respondent Smt.Mini Joseph, the former wife of the appellant, submits that she has absolutely no knowledge of any such unfortunate incident. She submits that such things should not have happened and if at all it has happened, she sincerely regrets the same. According to her it is only appropriate that the appellant also goes for remarriage and she will render all necessary assistance possible within her limits for such a remarriage. 3. Sri.Roy Tomlal further submits that his legal right to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law may be reserved. Even if nothing as above is reserved also, this judgment is not going to stand in the way of either the appellant M.F.A.No.359 of 2001 -:3:- or the respondent vindicating their legal rights, if any available to them in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. Therefore, we do not think that any express reservation as such is necessary on that count. 4. In view of the settlement of the disputes between the parties as agreed to by the parties, they have filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. In view of the joint petition as above, it has become unnecessary to pass any orders in O.P.No.2769/1998. Therefore, the judgment and decree in O.P.No.2769/1998 is set aside and the original petition is dismissed. 5. As a culmination of various disputes between the parties as referred to in this judgment as above, the parties have filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. There is also a petition to waive the lie over period. The parties are present before us. We also have talked to them extensively. We are convinced that there is no collusion. We are also convinced that in view of the long pending litigation between the parties, it is only just and proper that a further lie over period is waived. M.F.A.No.359 of 2001 -:4:- Accordingly I.A.No.1171/2008 is allowed. I.A.No.1170/2008 is allowed and the marriage between the applicants (appellant and respondent) is dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.F.A.No.359 of 2001 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 28th May, 2008