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.

Prasad vs Resmi

Prasad vs RESMI

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 30, 2022
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1493422

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
RPFC/344/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prasad

Respondent

RESMI

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice basant balaji monday, the 30th day of may 2022 / 9th jyaishta, 1944 r.p.(f.c.) no.344 of 2016 (against the order dated 21.04.2016 in mc 81/2015 of family court, thrissur)revision petitioner/respondent: prasad, s/o.kossery viswanathan, sreyas nagar, ollur village, thrissur taluk, thrissur district. by adv sri.mahesh v.menon respondents/petitioners: 1 resmi, thrissur district, 680 506. 2 durga, aged 5 years, d/o.prasad, represented by her mother, resmi, thrissur district, 680 506 by adv sri.m.a.abdul hakhim this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 30.05.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: r.p.(f.c) no.344 of 2016order(dated :30th may, 2022) the counsel for the petitioner submits that, the parties were sent to the district mediation centre, thrissur and the co-ordinator has filed a mediation agreement signed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, in which it is stated that the parties have agreed to settle the matrimonial disputes and started living together with their two year old daughter. it is also stated that the respondent has agreed to close m.c.no.81 of 2015 and she will not execute the same. recording the above said submission, this r.p.(fc) is closed. it is also made clear that, in case of any dispute arise between them and the wife and child start living separately, this order will not stand in the way of them moving the family court again, claiming maintenance afresh in accordance with law. sd/- basant balaji,judge ss

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1944 R.P.(F.C.) NO.344 OF 2016 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2016 IN MC 81/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR)

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: PRASAD, S/O.KOSSERY VISWANATHAN, SREYAS NAGAR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RESMI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 506. 2 DURGA, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O.PRASAD, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, RESMI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 506 BY ADV SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(F.C) No.344 of 2016

ORDER

(Dated :30th May, 2022) The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the parties were sent to the District Mediation Centre, Thrissur and the Co-ordinator has filed a mediation agreement signed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, in which it is stated that the parties have agreed to settle the matrimonial disputes and started living together with their two year old daughter. It is also stated that the respondent has agreed to close M.C.No.81 of 2015 and she will not execute the same. Recording the above said submission, this R.P.(FC) is closed. It is also made clear that, in case of any dispute arise between them and the wife and child start living separately, this order will not stand in the way of them moving the Family Court again, claiming maintenance afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI,JUDGE ss

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial