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.

Jolly vs Sony Thomas

JOLLY vs Sony Thomas

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Nov 29, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1661067

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/185/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOLLY

Respondent

Sony Thomas

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice basant balaji monday, the 29th day of november 2021/8th agrahayana, 1943 (against the order dated 27.11.2015 in mc 137/2015 of family court, palakkad) revision petitioner/petitioners: 1 jolly p.a., d/o. p.v. ebraham,aged 42 years. 2 jeswin, s/o.sony thomas, aged 13 years, minor 3 oleeviya sony, aged 9 years, minor d/o.sony thomas, 4 rosvin sony, s/o.sony thomas, aged 13/4 years, minor. 5 augnus mariya sony, d/o.sony thomas, aged 13/4 years, minor (2 to 5 minior petitioners represented by guardian mother the ist petitioner jolly p.a.) (all petitioenrs are residing at panthalanikkal veedu, v.k. quarters, anand nagar, kallekulangara p.o., palakkad)by adv sri.jacob sebastian respondent/respondent: sony thomas, s/o.late p.v. thomas, aged 45 years, panthalanikkal veedu, kappad p.o., kanjirappalli, kottayam-686 508. this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 29.11.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:order(dated: 29th november, 2021) ------------------------- the counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence the same may be dismissed as not pressed. recording the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, r.p.(f.c.) is dismissed as not pressed. sd/- basant balaji, judge ss

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 IN MC 137/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD) REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS: 1 JOLLY P.A., D/O. P.V. EBRAHAM,

AGED 42 YEARS. 2 JESWIN, S/O.SONY THOMAS, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR 3 OLEEVIYA SONY, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR D/O.SONY THOMAS, 4 ROSVIN SONY, S/O.SONY THOMAS, AGED 13/4 YEARS, MINOR. 5 AUGNUS MARIYA SONY, D/O.SONY THOMAS, AGED 13/4 YEARS, MINOR (2 TO 5 MINIOR PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER THE IST PETITIONER JOLLY P.A.) (ALL PETITIOENRS ARE RESIDING AT PANTHALANIKKAL VEEDU, V.K. QUARTERS, ANAND NAGAR, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD)

BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SONY THOMAS, S/O.LATE P.V. THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS, PANTHALANIKKAL VEEDU, KAPPAD P.O., KANJIRAPPALLI, KOTTAYAM-686 508. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

(Dated: 29th November, 2021) ------------------------- The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, R.P.(F.C.) is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial