IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Tr.Appeal(C).No. 10 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN TRPC.256/2008 Dated 24/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- SHIJU M.P., AGED 32 YEARS S/O.PRAKASAN, MANNALIL HOUSE KUMBALANGI P.O.,KOCHI-7 (EMPLOYED AT LAND MARK CENTRAL MARKET COMPANY, KUWAIT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.PRAKASAN, MANNALIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI P.O.,KOCHI-7. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------- BIJIMOL.P., D/O. PARIJAKSHAN N.S, NAMBICHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA PO,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009 ALONG WITH TAC NOS.11 & 12 OF 2008 AND MAT.CASE NOS.1,2 & 3 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr. Appeal Nos.10, 11 & 12 of 2008 and Mat. Case Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 11th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. All these cases pertain to a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant- Shiju married respondent- Bijimol on 11.2.2007. For the last one year, they are living separately. In view of the irreconcilable differences between them, the husband filed O.P. No.711 of 2008 before the Family Court, Ernakulam for divorce. The wife filed H.M.A.O.P.No.866 of 2008 before the Family Court, Kottayam seeking dissolution of marriage. She also filed O.P.No.867 of 2008 seeking return of money and gold ornaments. Since the parties were before two family courts, the husband approached this court praying for transfer of all the cases to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The wife in turn filed another petition for tranfer of all the cases to the Family Court, Kottayam. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the wife transferring all the cases to the Family Court, Kottayam and dismissed the other. Aggrieved, the husband has come up in all the three appeals. When the appeals came up for consideration before us, finding that there is essentially a matrimonial discord and dispute between the parties, in exercise of our power and duty under Order 32-A Rule 3 of C.P.C., we directed the Tr.A.10,11 & 12/08 & Mat.A.1,2 & 3/09 2 parties to be present before us. We talked to the parties at length. We have also talked to their parents. We had the assistance also of Adv.Mr.P.R.Shaji as Conciliator-cum-Mediator. 2. The 11th day of February is an important day in the life of the parties. It is their wedding anniversary day. But instead of celebrating the anniversary, unfortunately it is another celebration. According to the learned Conciliator-cum-Mediator also, the parties have fallen apart and reconciliation is a remote possibility and it is not likely to work out also. In view of the irretrievable break down of their relationship, the parties have ultimately decided to part as friends. 3. In view of the attempts made by this court either to mend or end this discord, we have withdrawn the three cases between the parties pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam and the Family Court, Kottayam respectively and they have been renumbered as Mat. Case Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009. The parties have also filed I.A.No.388/09 under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on mutual consent. In the background of the various litigations between the parties and in view of the adamant stand of the parties, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the parties to wait for the lie over period since we are convinced that a change of heart is not likely to take place. In fact it was for this change of heart, we have been trying for last two months. All our attempts are in vain. Therefore Tr.A.10,11 & 12/08 & Mat.A.1,2 & 3/09 3 it is not necessary for the parties to wait and hence the lie over period is waived. In the above circumstances, we allow I.A.No.388/09 filed by the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the marriage between them is dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. 4. The learned Conciliator-cum-Mediator has reported that the various other disputes also have been settled between the parties and their parents who are present before us submit that they have no other dispute since all the disputes are settled through mediation. In view of the settlement as above, Mat. Case Nos.2 and 3 of 2009 are dismissed as withdrawn. Mat. Case No.1 of 2009 and Tr.Appeal No.10/2008 are disposed of in terms of the order referred to above regarding the divorce on mutual consent. I.A.No.388/09 will form part of the decree in Mat. Case No.1 of 2009. Tr. Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 2008 are dismissed as withdrawn. The Conciliator-cum-Mediator shall be paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- which shall be shared equally by the parties. All Pending Interlocutory Applications are closed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE Tr.A.10,11 & 12/08 & Mat.A.1,2 & 3/09 4