Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GANGADHARAN, KUZHINJANVILA VEEDU versus PRINCY, MANOHARA MANDIRAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GANGADHARAN, KUZHINJANVILA VEEDU v. PRINCY, MANOHARA MANDIRAM - Mat Appeal No. 109 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 7648 (12 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat Appeal No. 109 of 2003()

1. GANGADHARAN, KUZHINJANVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PRINCY, MANOHARA MANDIRAM,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER

For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BHASKARAN (RETD.JUDGE)

Dated :12/04/2007

O R D E R

K .JOHN MATHEW (R

ETD. JUDGE) &

R.BHASKARAN (RETD. JUDGE)

MAT. APPEAL Nos. 109 OF 2003 & 128 OF 2003

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2007

AWARD K.JOHN MATHEW (Rtd. Judge) The parties have settled both appeals on the following terms: In Mat. Appeal No.109/2003, the appellant-petitioner(husband) is today paying Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) by D.D. No.248409 dated 10-4-2007 on the Indian Bank, Thiruvananthapuram to the wife (respondent) in full settlement of all her claims. The husband and wife have filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act agreeing for divorce. Execution in O.S.No.416 of 1999 for maintenance is pending in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The father has already paid the maintenance of the minor son up to 4th October, 2004. Today father is paying the balance amount of maintenance of Rs.16,000/- up to the date of son attaining majority namely February 15, 2006. The son will withdraw the execution petition in that O.S. By order dated 2.4.2004 in Mat. Appeal No.109/2003 the High Court had MA Nos. 109/2003 & 128/2003 2 directed the appellant(husband) to deposit Rs.5,000/- and permitted the wife to withdraw that amount towards expenses. Rs.5,000/- was deposited on 3.5.2004. The wife is allowed to withdraw the said amount. In view of the fact that parties are residing separately for more than 2 years namely, 1997 on wards and they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, the marriage between appellant Gangadharan and respondent Princy is dissolved and Mat. Appeals are disposed of as settled. K.JOHN MATHEW

(RETD. JUDGE)

` R.BHASKARAN

(RETD. JUDGE)

jp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.