Soumya vs Sanil Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 10, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1278032

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/1278032
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan,Honourable Mrs. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
Decided On: Apr 10, 2025
Case Number: RP/273/2025
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Soumya

Respondent

Sanil Kumar

Excerpt

.....10.04.2025, the court on the same day delivered the following:sathish ninan & shoba annamma eapen, jj. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = in mat.appeal no.1036 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = dated this the 10th day of april, 2025ordersathish ninan, j.the appeal was disposed of by this court as perjudgment dated 13.12.2024. the appellant seeks forreview of the judgment stating that, the deposition of the 1st respondent-husband that the gold ornaments were kept in his house was not taken note of by this court while passing the impugned judgment. on such admission, the claim of the husband that, the wife was in possession of the ornaments, is improbable, it is contended. -: 2 :-2. we have heard the learned counsel on either side.3. the relevant portion of the deposition reads thus;"ഹർജ കക ക ഉണ യ ര ന എന ന ങൾ പറയ ന സ ർണ ഹർജ കക ന ങള ട വടൽ തടന ആയ ര നല% സ&ക ച ര നത? എനടറ വ ട ൽ ആയ ര ന എങ ല ഹർജ കക യ ട കകവശ ആയ ര ന . ഞ ൻ gulf ൽ ലപ ക ന സമയ ഹർജ കക തടന കകവശ വയക കയ കകക ര/ ട0യ കയ ആയ ര ന ."as is evident therefrom, the husband maintained that, though the ornaments were kept in his house, it was under the custody of the wife. at paragraph 8 of the judgment, we have found the circumstances indicated that the ornaments were with wife. while arriving at such conclusion, this court had also taken note of ext.b1 photograph in relation to the betrothal function of-: 3 :- husband's brother.4. the apex court has repeatedly cautioned that a review is not to be an appeal in disguise or an attempted rehearing of the matter. at any rate, we do not find any merit in the contention.5. we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. the review petition fails and is dismissed. no cost. sd/- sathish.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 273 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2024 IN Mat.Appeal NO.1036 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN MAT APPEAL: 1 SOUMYA AGED 30 YEARS D/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001 2 HARSH (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SOUMYA, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001 BY ADV N.VIMALAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN MAT APPEAL: 1 SANIL KUMAR AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SUNDARESAN, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DIST, PIN - 691010 -: 2 :- 2 SUNDARESAN S/O.PAPPU, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691010 ADV.P.SIVANAD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = in Mat.Appeal No.1036 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025

ORDER

Sathish Ninan, J.

The appeal was disposed of by this Court as per

judgment dated 13.12.2024. The appellant seeks for

review of the judgment stating that, the deposition of the 1st respondent-husband that the gold ornaments were kept in his house was not taken note of by this Court while passing the impugned judgment. On such admission, the claim of the husband that, the wife was in possession of the ornaments, is improbable, it is contended. -: 2 :-

2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The relevant portion of the deposition reads thus;

"ഹർജ കക ക ഉണ യ ര ന എന ന ങൾ പറയ ന സ ർണ ഹർജ കക ന ങള ട വടൽ തടന ആയ ര നല% സ&ക ച ര നത? എനടറ വ ട ൽ ആയ ര ന എങ ല ഹർജ കക യ ട കകവശ ആയ ര ന . ഞ ൻ Gulf ൽ ലപ ക ന സമയ ഹർജ കക തടന കകവശ വയക കയ കകക ര/ ട0യ കയ ആയ ര ന ."

As is evident therefrom, the husband maintained that, though the ornaments were kept in his house, it was under the custody of the wife. At paragraph 8 of the judgment, we have found the circumstances indicated that the ornaments were with wife. While arriving at such conclusion, this Court had also taken note of Ext.B1 photograph in relation to the betrothal function of

-: 3 :- husband's brother.

4. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that a review is not to be an appeal in disguise or an attempted rehearing of the matter. At any rate, we do not find any merit in the contention.

5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition fails and is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties Soumya vs Sanil Kumar Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan,Honourable Mrs. Justice ...