High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposal by dissolution of marriage in Mat.Appe...

E.K. RAMESH BABU v. V.P SHYNI

Case / Petition Number:Mat.Appeal No. 1235 of 2015; Mat.Appeal No. 235 of 2017; R.P.(FC) No. 44 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
  • P.G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date
2021-12-16
Court Decision / Holding
Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015 disposed of; marriage between the appellant and the respondent dissolved under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mat.Appeal No.235 of 2017 and R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018 dismissed as withdrawn. I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 allowed, waiving the waiting period under Section 13B(2) in view of the long pendency, no likelihood of reunion, and the parties’ settlement.
Final Disposition
Disposal by dissolution of marriage in Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015; other two appeals disposed of as withdrawn; waiting period dispensation allowed per 13B(2).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • E.K RAMESH BABU
  • SHYNI V.P.

Respondents

  • V.P SHYNI D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, SOUBHAGYA, NEAR WEST U.P. SCHOOL, KIZHUNNA, P.O. THOTTADA, KANNUR - 670010
  • E.K.RAMESH BABU S/O.M.V. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, 'SOUPARNIKA', PARIYARAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670502

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
  • • Sri.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
  • • Sri.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
  • • Sri.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
  • • Sri.P.BHARATHAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.P.BHARATHAN
  • • Sri.GEORGE MATHEWS
  • • Sri.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
  • • Sri.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
  • • Sri.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated matrimonial appeal from the Kerala High Court involving dissolution of marriage and maintenance issues between E.K. Ramesh Babu and V.P. Shyni, arising from proceedings in the Family Court, Kannur. The key dispute began with a petition for dissolution under sections 13(1) and 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband, which was dismissed by the Family Court on 15.10.2015. Thereafter, Shyni challenged maintenance orders, leading to O.P. 137/2015 and M.C. 87/2015 before the Family Court Kannur, which were disposed of in 27.10.2016. The three appeals and a revision petition (R.P.(FC) 44/2018) were heard together by the Kerala High Court on 16.12.2021. A compromise petition dated 06.09.2021 was filed; the court initially held that Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015 could not be disposed of solely on compromise. Subsequently, both parties moved under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent and waiving the mandatory six‑month waiting period under Section 13B(2). Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the court held that the waiting period is discretionary and may be dispensed with after thorough consideration of factors including absence of likelihood of reconciliation, long pendency, and a settled maintenance arrangement. Ultimately, the court dissolved the marriage in 1235/2015 and dismissed the other two appeals as withdrawn, while allowing the waiver of the waiting period.

Provisions of Law Cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1A)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13BHindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B(2)Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPCSection 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage ActSection 9 of the Family Courts Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Discretionary nature of the waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act as held in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746
  • No likelihood of reunion when parties have settled their differences and entered into a written compromise; maintenance provision already agreed upon

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-husband (Mat.Appeal No.1235/2015) seeks dissolution of marriage under Section 13B on the basis of a compromise, contending that the long pendency of litigation, absence of any likelihood of reunion, and the parties’ prior settlement justify dispensing with the six-month waiting period; the court’s acceptance of the compromise and the withdrawal of related appeals support finality in the matter.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-wife (and the other applicant in the matter) supports the settlement, requests finality of the dispute, and relies on the parties’ readiness to withdraw other appeals; the court considers mediation efforts, the long litigation, and the absence of reunion in exercising its discretion under 13B(2).

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur(2017) 8 SCC 746PositiveHeld that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) is discretionary and may be waived if conditions such as no likelihood of reconciliation and mature settlement are satisfied; this principle was applied to justify waiving the waiting period in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against E.K. RAMESH BABU v. V.P SHYNI and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO.1235 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2015 IN O.P.NO.448 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR** **APPELLANT:** **E.K RAMESH BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE V. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, SOUPARNIKA, PARIYARAM P.O., KANNUR - 670 502.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **V.P SHYNI D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, SOUBHAGYA, NEAR WEST U.P. SCHOOL, KIZHUNNA, P.O. THOTTADA, KANNUR - 670 010.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.BHARATHAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.12.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.235 OF 2017 AND R.P.(FC) NO.44 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **2 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2016 IN O.P.NO.137 OF 2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR** ## **APPELLANT:** **SHYNI.V.P., AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.GOPINATHAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT 'SOUBHAGYA', KIZHUNNA, NEAR WEST U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR – 670010.** **BY ADV SRI.P.BHARATHAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **E.K.RAMESH BABU AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.V. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, 'SOUPARNIKA', PARIYARAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670502.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.12.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.1235/2015 AND R.P.(FC) NO.44 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **3 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 RPFC NO. 44 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2016 IN M.C.NO.87 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **SHYNI V.P., AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.GOPINATHAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT SOUBHAGYA, KIZHUNNA, NEAR WEST UP SCHOOL, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 010.** **BY ADV SRI.P.BHARATHAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **E.K. RAMESH BABU** **S/O.M.V.KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, AGED 45 YEARS, SOUPARNIKA, PARIYARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 502.** **BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH** **K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) M.K.SUMOD** **E.MOHAMMED SHAFI** ## **THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR** **FINAL HEARING ON 16.12.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.NOS.1235 OF 2015 AND 235 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **4 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** ## **JUDGMENT/ORDER** ## Ajithkumar, J. Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015 was filed by the petitionerhusband in O.P.No.448 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. That was a petition filed seeking dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1) and (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That petition was dismissed and the order of dismissal is in challenge in this appeal. 2. Mat.Appeal No.235 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner-wife in O.P.No.137 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. She also filed M.C.No.87 of 2015 before the said court. She filed those cases claiming past and future maintenance. Both the O.P. and the M.C. were allowed in part only. The appellant filed this appeal seeking to modify the order in O.P.No.137 of 2015 and to allow past maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. R.P.(FC) No. 44 of 2018 was filed assailing the order in M.C.No.87 of 2015. The appellant seeks to modify the order of the Family Court allowing monthly maintenance at ## **5 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition and to allow monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-. 4. A compromise petition dated 06.09.2021 was filed by the parties as I.A.No.1 of 2021 stating that they have settled the dispute involved in all the three cases. After considering the terms of compromise, this Court ordered on 16.11.2021 that Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015 cannot be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 5. Subsequently both parties together filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act along with I.A.No.3 of 2021 with a prayer to dispense with the waiting period of six months as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The Apex Court in **Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [2017 (8) SCC 746]** considered whether it is mandatory in all cases to wait for the statutory period under Section 13B(2) of the Act before allowing divorce on mutual ## **6 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** consent. It was held that the provision was discretionary and not mandatory. The Apex Court held that the period can be waived if the Court is satisfied after considering the following: 'i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.' 8. The petition for divorce was filed in the year 2013. The Family Court disposed of that case on 15.10.2015. The O.P. and M.C. claiming past and future maintenance were filed by the respondent in 2015. Those cases were disposed of by the Family Court on 27.10.2016. After that the parties have come up in appeals and the appeals have been pending before **7 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** this Court. Considering the fact that the litigation between the parties have been pending for such a long period and there is no likelihood of reunion between the parties and also that the parties have already made sufficient provision for the future maintenance of the respondent-wife, we are of the view that the waiting period of six months can be waived in this case. Therefore, I.A.No.3 of 2021 is allowed. 9. Having heard both sides and also taking into account the averments in the affidavit filed by both the appellant and the respondent in support of the application, we are convinced that there is no possibility of reunion of the parties and on their free will they have decided to dissolve their marriage. In the said circumstances, we allow I.A.No.2 of 2021. 10. The parties have settled all the disputes between them and the terms of the compromise have been reduced into writing as reflected in I.A.No.1 of 2021. As per the terms the respondent wife has agreed to withdraw Mat.Apeal Nos.235 of 2017 and R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018. **8 Mat.Appeal Nos.1235 of 2015, 235 of 2017 & R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018** In the above circumstances, Mat.Appeal No.1235 of 2015 is disposed of and marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and, Mat.Appeal No.235 of 2017 and R.P.(FC) No.44 of 2018 are dismissed as withdrawn. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr