Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B.SNEIIAIATHA, JJ
JRES V.O. OUSEPH – Appellant
Versus
BETTY AGED 49 – Respondent
Mat.Appeal No. 12510F 2016 | Mat.Appeal No. 1247 OF 2016 | Mat.Appeal No. 1251/2016 | Mat.Appeal No. 1252/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. GlsA susAN THOMAS, SUM. K. AREEY, SUM. G. ASHWINI, SUM. A. R. DIVYA
For the Respondents: SHRI. REBIN VINCENT GRALZDA, SHRI. DINESH G WARRIER
The court permitted mutual consent divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, when marital relations are irretrievably broken down.
Headnote:In the present case, the court examines appeals challenging judgments and decrees from Family Court. The parties reached a settlement through mediation and filed a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The court found the absence of marital reconciliation viable and allowed the grant of mutual consent divorce. The final outcome resolved disputes amicably.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants challenge family court judgments. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties reached mediation settlement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. joint petition confirms irretrievable breakdown. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court allows divorce by mutual consent. (Para 7) |
| 5. judgment incorporates mutual agreement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
These Mat.Appeals are preferred by the appellant/husband challenging the judgment and decrees in O.P.Nos.650/2015, 652/2015 and 649/2015 of Family Court, Irin].alakkuda.
2. Today, when these appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled in the mediation held under the aegis of Mediation Centre, Ernakulam and a memorandum of settlement agreement has been filed before this Court.
3. We have examined the memorandum of settlement agreement and we notice that it has been signed by the parties and subscribed by their counsel. The terms of the agreement are lawful and therefore, the settlement arrived at by the parties is accepted`
4. In view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, appellant and respondent have filed a joint petition .under Section 10A of the Divorce Act , 1869 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, wherein they have stated that the marital relationship between them 7 has been irretrievably broken down and there is absolutely no chance for a reunion. Further it is stated that they mutually and voluntarily decided to settle all their disputes and issues in between them; that the spouses are living separately from 13.7.2010 onwards; and there is no marital relationship between them and therefore, they seek divorce by mutual consent.
5. Both parties have affirmed that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled in terms of the joint petition filed by the parties.
6. We are convinced t:hat the marriage between the spouses has been irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reunion and divorce is the viable option and all`the attempts of reunion have been failed. We are also convinced that the parties have voluntarily filed the petition under Section 10A of the . Divorce Act , 1869 and there is no collusion between the parties.
7. We are of the view that this is a fit case to grant divorce by mutual consent on the application filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act , 1869 by waiving the cooling off period as the marriage is irretrievably broken. Hence I.A.No.1/2025 filed under of the , 1869 is allowed.
8. Accordingly appeals are disposed of as follows:
a) Mat.Appeal No.1252/2016 is disposed of by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act , 1869 with effect from this date.
b) Mat.Appeal.No.1251/2016 stands disposed of in terms of memorandum of settlement.
c) Mat,Appeal.No.1247/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.
9. The parties are directed to act implicitly in terms of the memorandum of settlement agreement.
10. The memorandum of settlement agreement and joint petition do form part of the judgment.
