Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

K.a. Joy vs Omana Joy

K.A. JOY vs Omana Joy

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 08, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1282893

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Mat.Appeal/229/2024
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.A. JOY

Respondent

Omana Joy

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice devan ramachandran & the honourable mrs. justice m.b. snehalatha tuesday, the 8th day of april 2025 / 18th chaithra, 1947 mat.appeal no. 229 of 2024 against the judgment dated 19.01.2022 in op no.572 of 2017 of family court, kozhikodeappellant/petitioner in op k.a. joy, aged 71 years, s/o late abraham residing at kadukanmackal house, lucky hill, meppadi p.o., wayanad, pin - 673577 nirmal v nair encil k. sabu nesili nazeer respondent/respondent in op: omana joy, aged 66 years, w/o k.a. joy joy land, karapparambu p.o., vengeri, kozhikode, pin - 673010 philip t.varghese thomas t.varghese(k/000516/1995) achu subha abraham(k/001758/1999) v.t.litha(k/278/2006) k.r.monisha(k/915/2013) jijo paul kallookkaran(k/212/2006) this matrimonial appeal having come up for admission on 08.04.2025, the court on the same day delivered the following: mat appeal 229/24judgmentdevan ramachandran, j.it is stated by sri.nirmal v. nair - learned counsel for the appellant, that his client is not pressing this appeal because, pending this matter, both sides have filed o.p.no.544/2025 before the learned family court, kozhikode, for divorce through mutual consent. in the afore circumstances, this appeal is dismissed as being not pressed; however, leaving liberty to the parties to invoke and pursue every remedy that may be available in law, dehors the findings of the learned family court in the judgment and decree impugned herein. devan ramachandran m.b. snehalatha rr

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2022 IN OP NO.572 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP K.A. JOY, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE ABRAHAM RESIDING AT KADUKANMACKAL HOUSE, LUCKY HILL, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673577 NIRMAL V NAIR ENCIL K. SABU NESILI NAZEER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OP: OMANA JOY, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O K.A. JOY JOY LAND, KARAPPARAMBU P.O., VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010 PHILIP T.VARGHESE THOMAS T.VARGHESE(K/000516/1995) ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999) V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006) K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013) JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN(K/212/2006) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat Appeal 229/24

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

It is stated by Sri.Nirmal V. Nair - learned counsel for the appellant, that his client is not pressing this Appeal because, pending this matter, both sides have filed O.P.No.544/2025 before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, for divorce through mutual consent. In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed as being not pressed; however, leaving liberty to the parties to invoke and pursue every remedy that may be available in law, dehors the findings of the learned Family Court in the judgment and decree impugned herein. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN M.B. SNEHALATHA RR

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial