IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 798 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.474/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P. ---------------------------------- 1. BINDHU KUNHIPARAMBATH, D/O.KURUVANNIL MADHAVA MARAR,KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, AZHIYOOR AMSOM,DESOM,P.O.AZHIYOOR,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 309. 2. K.MADHAVAN MARAR,KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, AZHIYOOR AMSOM,DESOM,P.O.AZHIYOOR,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 309. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE O.P. ------------------------------------- C.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.MADHAVA MARAR, THENEKKARANKANDI,THRIKKUTTISSERI AMSOM, VAKAYAD DESOM,P.O.VAKAYAD,KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SRI.P BABUKUMAR [CAVEATOR] SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Family Court under Sec.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the marriage which was solemnized on 23/4/08 between the 1st appellant and the respondent was declared to be null and void. The counter claim was dismissed by the said impugned order. 2. After the parties appeared before this Court, the parties were referred for mediation. Before the Mediator the parties settled their disputes. A joint statement has been filed by the parties duly countersigned by their counsel and the same will be annexed to the appellate decree. All the disputes between the parties were settled. Gold ornaments, amounts, articles etc., specified in the joint statement were returned by the respondent to the appellants. Receipt of the same is acknowledged. It was Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 2 agreed that the marriage shall be dissolved. It was further agreed that the parties shall have no claims against each other. 3. On receipt of the report of the Mediator enclosing the joint statement, counsel were requested to enlighten the Court as to what further steps they contemplated in pursuance of the joint statement. We queried so because we found that the first term of settlement is that “the parties hence agreed to dissolve marriage solemnized on 23/4/08”. What is the process of dissolution which they have contemplated, it was queried. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal can be dismissed now upholding the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellants was not clear as to the nature of the procedure that ought to be followed. We accordingly directed parties to appear before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the appellants would so insist, the respondent is willing to file an application for dissolution of marriage under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in view of the imprecise manner in which the joint statement was drafted. It was accordingly that the parties were directed to appear before this Court. On 22/11/10, on 23/11/10 and on Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 3 24/11/10 to which days the case was adjourned, the appellants have not chosen to appear before this Court though the respondent was personally present. We look at the plight of the respondent who accepting the terms of the settlement has already performed his part of the obligation under the joint statement. The appellants have not chosen to come before this Court to prosecute this appeal or to take any further steps which they may have contemplated when they signed the joint statement dated 14/10/10. We note that the joint statement has been prepared and signed by the parties with due assistance of the counsel. 4. It is true that the joint statement does not mention anything as to how this appeal is to be dealt with. We are, however, satisfied in the circumstance of this case that this appeal can now be dismissed for non prosecution and that appears to us to be the soul of the agreement between the parties. The inability of the appellants to appear before this Court despite specific directions further points to the fact that they also want the matter to be disposed of. Mat. Appeal No. 798 of 2009-C 4 5. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal for non prosecution accepting the joint statement between the parties, which shall be appended to the decree. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/