IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 236 of 2006() ---------------------------- OP.583/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- MARY ABRAHAM, AGED 49 YEARS, VETTIKKALAKUZHIYIL, KADAPLAMATTAM, KIDANGOOR NOW RESIDING AT SANTHA SADANAM, ALTHARAMOODU, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- K.U.ABRAHAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, MANNARKUNNEL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.SREEDEVI KAILASANATH[MEDIATOR] THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, ALONG WITH MA NO. 239 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NOS.236 & 239 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The petitioner in O.P. No.583 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.236 of 2006. The connected appeal is filed by the respondent/husband against the very same order. 2. A decree was passed by the Family Court, Kottayam directing the respondent/husband to return Rs.6,60,804/- to the petitioner/wife with interest. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, we directed the parties to appear before us. Accordingly, the parties appeared on several occasions. We had interacted with the parties on such occasions. We are happy to note that the parties have entered into a compromise and settled the disputes between them. They have filed I.A. No.2968 of 2008 in Mat. Appeal No.239 of 2006 stipulating the terms of compromise and prayed for passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 10 A of the Indian Divorce Act. In terms of the compromise, the MAT.APPEAL NOS.236 & 239/2006 2 respondent/husband has executed a sale deed in favour of his son conveying 16 cents of land in R.S. No.334/3 in Block No.8 of Athirampuzha Village in full and final settlement of all claims of the appellant/wife and her two children. We reserve the right of the respondent/husband to take income from the rubber trees standing in the said property as of now so long as his son retains the property. We make it clear that Mr. Alex Abraham, son of the appellant and respondent is at liberty to dispose of the property at any time. The appellant has also agreed to withdraw the execution petitions pending before the Family Court, Kottaym in O.P. No.583 of 2004 and M.C. No.163 of 2007. Regarding the prayer for a decree of divorce, we are satisfied that the joint application is filed on their on accord and that there is no collusion between the parties in filing the said application. In view of the long pending dispute, we feel that there is no necessity to keep the matter pending till the expiry of the statutory period. We, therefore, waive the lie over period. 3. Accordingly, a decree of divorce is passed dissolving the marriage between the parties with effect from today. The terms of settlement stipulated in I.A. Nos. 2967 and 2968 of 2008 shall form part of the decree passed in the respective appeals. MAT.APPEAL NOS.236 & 239/2006 3 The Matrimonial Appeals are disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ MAT.APPEAL NOS.236 & 239/2006 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. MAT.APPEALNOS. 236 & 239/2006 JUDGMENT 3rd November, 2008 MAT.APPEAL NOS.236 & 239/2006 5