Rukmini Vs. Pavithran

Rukmini vs Pavithran

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009471

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1009471
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Pius C.Kuriakose
Decided On: Dec 20, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rukmini

Respondent

Pavithran

Excerpt

.....day of december 2012 order pius c. kuriakose, j.it is submitted by counsel on both sides that all the issues between the parties have been settled and that a joint petition has been filed before the family court, ernakulam.2. i.a.no. 3297 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent husband for lifting the attachment which is subsisting over the immovable property described in plaint 'a' schedule properties as per i.a.no. 1080 of 2003 in o.p. no. 341 of 2003 of the family court, ernakulam. this is necessary, according to counsel on both sides, so as to enable the husband to raise the sum of rs. 30,25,000/-, which he is eligible to pay to the wife for implementing the settlement. there is no objection to the application for being allowed. hence, we allow i.a.no.3297 of 2012 and lift the attachment in respect of the plaint 'a' schedule property alone. communicate this order immediately to the sub registry, angamaly. copy of 'a' schedule will also be annexed to this order. pius c. kuriakose, judge babu mathew p.joseph, judge kvr/ pius c. kuriakose & babu mathew p.joseph, jj.==================== mat. appeal no. 683 of 2009 ==================== dated this the 20th day of december 2012 judgment we close this mat. appeal for the time being. post on 11-1-2013 along with mat. appeal no. 580/2012. ` pius c. kuriakose, judge babu mathew p.joseph, judge kvr/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 Mat.Appeal.No. 683 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------------ OP.341/2003 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------- 1. RUKMINI PAVITHRAN, AGED 50 D/O.SUBHADRA, AYYEDATHU VEEDU, MANJIKKADU MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ANKAMALI.

2. SANDHYA PAVITHRAN, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O PAVITHRAN, AYYEDATHU VEEDU, MANJIKKADU MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ANKAMALI.

3. SATHEESH, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.PAVITHRAN, AYYEDATHU VEEDU, MANJIKKADU, MOOKKANNOOR P.O. ANKAMALI. BY ADVS SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- PAVITHRAN, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AYYEDATHU VEEDU, MUNNOORPPILLY, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SS PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

==================== I.A. No. 3297/2012 in Mat. Appeal No. 683 of 2009 ==================== Dated this the 20th day of December 2012 ORDER PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

It is submitted by counsel on both sides that all the issues between the parties have been settled and that a joint petition has been filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam.

2. I.A.No. 3297 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent husband for lifting the attachment which is subsisting over the immovable property described in plaint 'A' schedule properties as per I.A.No. 1080 of 2003 in O.P. No. 341 of 2003 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. This is necessary, according to counsel on both sides, so as to enable the husband to raise the sum of Rs. 30,25,000/-, which he is eligible to pay to the wife for implementing the settlement. There is no objection to the application for being allowed. Hence, we allow I.A.No.3297 of 2012 and lift the attachment in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule property alone. Communicate this order immediately to the Sub Registry, Angamaly. Copy of 'A' schedule will also be annexed to this order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE kvr/ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

==================== Mat. Appeal No. 683 of 2009 ==================== Dated this the 20th day of December 2012 JUDGMENT We close this Mat. Appeal for the time being. Post on 11-1-2013 along with Mat. Appeal No. 580/2012. ` PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE kvr/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2012 Same Parties Rukmini vs Pavithran Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Pius C.Kuriakose