Nadine vs Dr. Thomas - Court Judgment

& RP NO. 367 OF 2022 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.1058/2016 FROM 12-B TRINITY CROWN,TRINITY FLATS, DR. THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS 30.06.2022, ALONG WITH RP.364/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 2 & RP NO. 364 OF 2022 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.1056/2016 FROM 12-B TRINITY CROWN, TRINITY FLATS, 30.06.2022 ALONG WITH R.P.NO.367/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 3 & RP NO. 368 OF 2022 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.36/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 28.02.2022 FROM 12-B TRINITY CROWN, TRINITY FLATS,

30.06.2022, ALONG WITH RP.367/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 4 & RP NO. 374 OF 2022 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.1057/2016 FROM 12-B TRINITY CROWN,TRINITY FLATS, 30.06.2022, ALONG WITH RP.364/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 5 & RP NO. 375 OF 2022 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.1052/2016 FROM 12-B TRINITY CROWN,TRINITY FLATS, 30.06.2022, ALONG WITH RP.367/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 6

ORDER

[RP Nos.367/2022, 364/2022, 368/2022, 374/2022, 375/2022]

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

We disposed of all the appeals based on elaborate discussions. We refer to the parties by name for clarity in these review petitions. Smt.Nadine, who was the appellant in Mat.Appeal Nos.1052/2016, 1056/2016, 1057/2016 and 1058/2016, filed the review petitions, essentially, pointing out the error in the judgment in regard to narration of facts. According to her, the pleadings narrated in the judgment did not reflect the fact statement mentioned by her in paragraph 8 of the petition for divorce. The pleadings as referred to in the judgment under review, in fact, is a reproduction of the narration of the

facts in the impugned judgment in the appeals. The

narration of the pleadings as such is not a finding. Therefore, we are of the view that the narration of the

facts essentially has to be with reference to the pleadings

as referred to in the petition for the divorce itself. Therefore, we clarify the impugned judgment to that extent. R.P.No.367/2022 & conn.cases 7 The other grounds on which the review petitions were filed, pointed out that this Court did not discuss the lumpsum amount claimed by Smt.Nadine and her children. In fact, the Family Court declined the relief. Though there was no discussion on this aspect, we are also of the view that no grounds have been made out to seek a lumpsum amount

for herself and on behalf of the children.                     If the children
have    any   right,     they    are      free    to    agitate       it   in    an
appropriate        manner       separately.            The     judgment          is,
accordingly,      clarified     to       that    extent,      so     far   as,   it

relates to the review petitions filed by Smt.Nadine. These review petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ln