This motor-accident claims appeal challenges an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.P.(MV) No.1440/2010 dated 13 May 2011, awarding Rs. 4,57,000 with 7% interest to Safiya, the widow of Anilkumar who died following injuries from a bus collision on 24 February 2008 (bus KL-10W-3022 driven by the second respondent). The tribunal treated the father Sankaran (aged around 70) as a legal representative and allotted him a share in the compensation, a matter challenged by the appellant who contends it reduces her rightful share and that compensation across heads was inadequate. Respondents defend the award as just and contend the father’s share was lawful; they also suggest the mother Madhavi’s and others’ claims may be addressed in accordance with statutory provisions. On appeal, the Kerala High Court reconsiders the decedent’s income, noting that the petition stated the deceased was a tailor earning Rs. 7,000, but the tribunal fixed Rs. 3,000, and, guided by Ramachandrappa, fixes the income at Rs. 6,500. The court then recalculates dependency, adopting Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh to fix minimums for loss of consortium, bystander’s expenses, and other heads. It grants additional amounts, reallocates shares among legal representatives, and awards 8% interest on the enhanced sums, directing deposit within three months. The appeal is allowed in part, with no costs.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal misc case under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Basil Thampi, the second accused, seeking to quash Annexure C (the complaint) and Annexure D (the committal order) in CMP No. 206/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. The underlying matter arises from a 21.4.2008 incident when the defacto complainant alleges that a group arriving in two vehicles formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, damaged property, and assaulted the complainant and family. Crime No. 243/08 was registered at Kunnathunadu under multiple IPC sections and thereafter charged as CC No. 705/2008; separately, CMP No. 206/2009 framed under a different set of sections including 459 IPC was initiated, leading to cognizance and committal proceedings (CP6/2009). The petitioner contends that no offence under section 459 was committed and that cognizance for the same set of facts, under a new section, amounts to harassment and abuse of process. The respondents contend prima facie backing for cognizance and trial, with six witnesses examined. The High Court, invoking its inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C. and relying on Bhajan Lal’s seven tests, finds the 459 allegation unsupported by medical evidence and quashes Annexures C and D, thereby allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) No.1604/2004. The appellant, P. Bhanumathy, sustained injuries on 24 July 1999 while a pedestrian on Calicut–Mavoor Road; the car involved was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 29,250 against the insurer for losses along with interest and costs, but did not grant compensation for permanent disability despite Ext. A4, a disability certificate indicating 12% permanent disability. The appellant, a tailor earning Rs. 2,000 per month, was also awarded three months’ loss of earnings by the Tribunal. The primary dispute concerns disability compensation and whether Ext. A4 should be accepted or referred for medical Board scrutiny. The appellant contends that the Supreme Court’s Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar requires a Medical Board reference if a disability certificate is unsatisfactory, and functional disability should be considered. The respondent insurer initially contended against liability for disability, but did not dispute Ext. A4. The High Court, relying on Raj Kumar, accepts Ext. A4, fixes 10% functional disability, applies the Sarla Verma multiplier (15) for a 39-year-old, and awards Rs.36,000 for disability, while upholding other heads as reasonable. The appeal is allowed with enhanced compensation and costs, and the insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest within 60 days.
WP(C) Nos.28972/2023, 29884/2023, 35266/2023, 38235/2023, 38281/2023 & 39676/2023 The batch of writ petitions challenges the revised CBME-based passing criteria for MBBS examinations, introduced by the National Medical Commission (NMC) in 2023. Petitioners, about 95 medical students from several colleges across Kerala, allege that the new norms—40% aggregate for subjects with two papers, and 40% theory with 60% practical or 60:40 splits in many configurations—were implemented retrospectively, adversely affecting students who had already appeared for examinations during the Covid-19 disruption. They contend the pandemic compromised teaching and assessment, and that the corrigendum dated 01.09.2023, made effective from 01.08.2023, should apply uniformly to all affected batches. The respondents (NMC, KUHS, UGMEB and KUHS bodies) defend the amendements as reforms intended to test competency, not to penalise those affected by the pandemic. The court scrutinizes whether the amended criteria can operate retroactively, emphasizing that academic standards are primarily the domain of expert bodies and that courts should generally refrain from intervening in educational policy. It cites Neha Anil Bobde (UGC case) and warns against wholesale retroactive application, especially where implementation would entail re-evaluating countless past results. While flagging inconsistencies (e.g., 60:40 vs 40:60 considerations), the court ultimately dismisses the petitions, holding that retrospective application is unwarranted and urging the NMC to address practical anomalies going forward.
WP(C) Nos. 18424 & 18442 of 2020 These two linked writ petitions challenge orders under the data bank regime in Kerala. The petitioners seek removal of their properties from the data bank and quashing of the 3rd respondent’s order (Exhibit P6/P8) dated 13.2.2019, while also seeking reconsideration of application outcomes (including Exts. P4, P7, P9) and inclusion of Form-5-era relief. WP(C) No.18424 of 2020 involves D. Sunil, and WP(C) No.18442 of 2020 involves Dr. V.S. Jeevaraj; both petitions are directed against the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Local Level Monitoring Committee at Peruvayal Gram Panchayat. The State contends via Government Pleader, defending the orders and the data bank framework. The two petitions are heard together and disposed by a common judgment. The court notes that the petitioners had filed Form-5 applications (Ext.P12) and directs the 2nd respondent to consider these applications de hors the earlier orders, after obtaining the KSREC report and inspecting the property if not already done. The key outcome is procedural: the 2nd respondent is to decide on Form-5 petitions within three months from receipt of the judgment copy, thus enabling a fresh assessment of exclusion from the data bank.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 3607 of 2016) from Kerala High Court arising out of OP(MV) 844/2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners, as dependents of the deceased K. Madanakumar, sought compensation after a 16 March 2005 accident in which a KSRTC bus allegedly hit the scooter he rode, causing his death. The Tribunal awarded partial compensation, granting Rs. 41,35,672 to petitioners 1 and 4 while rejecting claims by petitioners 2 and 3 on the ground that they were not dependents. The appellants challenged this finding as erroneous and unsupported by evidence. The High Court, citing United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. Shalumol and others (2021 SCC Online Kerala 3209), held that financial dependency is not the sole criterion for dependency under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the tribunal’s assumption to exclude petitioners 2 and 3 was not sustainable. The court concluded that the fourth petitioner’s death meant the compensation should be apportioned among appellants 1 to 3, and directed apportionment in the ratio 40:30:30, disbursal with interest and costs in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs. The judgment emphasizes a broader interpretation of dependency beyond mere financial support under MV Act.
M.F.A.(FOREST).No.16/2005 This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in MFA (Forest) No. 16 of 2005, arising from an order of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode dated 17.12.2003 on OA No.25 of 2001. The Original Application, filed under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignments) Act, 1971, sought a declaration that the property scheduled therein is not a private forest and not vested in the Government, and in the alternative, an exemption under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the property is a private forest vested in the Government but granted exemption under Section 3(2). The State and the Custodian challenged this, arguing the order was non-speaking and that the appellant failed to prove cultivation sufficient for exemption; they relied on case law requiring the applicant to prove non-vesting and cultivation. The Court undertook a detailed review of the evidence, including the Advocate Commissioner’s report noting seven tamarind trees (50–60 years) and three Chadachikora trees (30–35 years), and found no cultivation by the applicant’s father, Marutha Boyan, prior to 1961. It reiterated that the burden to prove exemption lies on the claimant, and that cultivation must be shown by preponderance of probability. The appeal is allowed; the Tribunal’s order is set aside and OA dismissed. The decision clarifies the meaning of cultivation (personal cultivation by the owner) under Section 3(2) and scrutinizes evidence, including title history and registration records.
W.A. No. 1554 of 2017; WP(C) No. 36951 of 2017 This intra-court appeal (W.A. No. 1554 of 2017) and the connected WP(C) No. 36951 of 2017 challenge actions under the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, notably concerning Section 101 and the interplay of Sec.65 inquiry with potential Sec.68 proceedings. The matter traces to a writ petition challenging the validity of orders and procedures in a cooperative dispute, leading the court to refer the matter to a Full Bench. The Full Bench, in its reference decision reported as Riji G.Nair (Dr.) v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2020 (6) KHC 633 (FB)), held that Section 101 can operate retrospectively in public interest, but with a caveat that vested rights cannot be defeated; it also held that the earlier judgments Sankaranarayanan and Benny Peruvanthanam do not lay down correct law on the point. In the present decision, the Division Bench (comprising Alexander Thomas, J. and Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.) directs that if the 1st respondent contemplates adverse action under Sec.68 on the basis of a Sec.65(1) inquiry, copies of the Sec.65(1) and Sec.68(1) reports must be supplied at the Sec.68(2) stage with safeguards (as in W.A. No. 1500/2021). While noting that no Sec.68 proceedings are currently initiated, the court emphasizes adherence to due process. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly and the writ appeal disposed of, with the WP(C) proceeding similarly disposed under the same directions.
MFA (Forest) No.174 of 2012 This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dealing with MFA (Forest) No.174 of 2012, challenging the applicability of the Vesting Act against a scheduled private forest land in Malampuzha. The appellant purchased the land (Ext.A1) from Lalitha and produced earlier title deeds (A3–A5) along with an ownership certificate (A2) and village registers. The Forest Tribunal originally rejected the exclusion under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(C) and exemptions under Section 3(2) and (3), holding that the land did not meet the Vesting Act criteria on 10 May 1971, with the assignee status not sufficing for exemption. On appeal (limited remand in MFA No.105/2006), the Tribunal revisited the issues, including the interpretation of “agricultural crop” under Clause (C) of Section 2(f)(1)(i) and the conditions for exemption under S.3(2) and (3). The Division Bench noted that the land’s cultivation status as on 10 May 1971 was not established, relying on village records and the Adangal extracts only upon later production. The court also considered relevant precedents: restricted meaning of “agricultural crops,” and that cultivation or intention to cultivate had to be demonstrated by conduct, not mere declarations. Finding no valid exclusion or exemption proven, the court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Tribunal’s decision, and awarded costs to the respondents.
This matters concerns OP (CAT) No. 21 of 2022 challenging CAT Ernakulam’s interim order dated 16.03.2022 in OA No. 13/2022. The applicant, S. Sarath, a Tax Recovery Officer, sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s interim directive that no final orders should be passed in the disciplinary proceedings until the Tribunal’s final order, while allowing the disciplinary enquiry to continue. The High Court of Kerala, constituting Justices Alexander Thomas and Viju Abraham, heard arguments from the applicant’s counsel B.G. Harindranath and the Respondents’ ASGI S. Manu. The applicant argued that vital documents had not been disclosed, that criminal proceedings (before the CBI) on the same charges were pending, and that continuing the disciplinary inquiry would prejudice his defense. He invoked classic authorities such as Capt. M. Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1993) to contend that departmental and criminal proceedings may run concurrently and that, where parallel proceedings exist, the nature of the charges and the stage of disclosure must be weighed. He also relied on disclosure jurisprudence (T. Takano v. SEBI), and Neelam Nag on staying proceedings where appropriate, and Natwar Singh (supra) in the context of disclosure. The respondents argued no bar to concurrent proceedings and urged expedition and final disposal of the matter. The court disposed of the petition with directions: supply certified copies of documents, allow the enquiry to proceed, but restrain final orders until Tribunal’s final decision and ensure early hearing.
The appellant Dasan Pillai, who was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.1648/2004 before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries suffered in a July 9, 2004 accident on the Alappuzha-Cherthala National Highway when a car (KL-03/F 2394) driven by the first respondent collided with his motorcycle. The car owner (second respondent) and insurer (third respondent) faced liability; though the former and the insurer did not contest, the insurer entered appearance but did not file a written statement. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs 84,546 with interest to be paid by the insurer. On appeal, the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in reducing the notional monthly income; Ext A9 shows Rs 9,000 per month, and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained unchallenged. Applying Kalpanaraj, the court deducted income tax and professional tax to compute net income, reinstated a notional monthly income of Rs 9,000, and fixed a multiplier of 14 following Sarla Verma to compute loss of earning capacity. Functional disability 11% was adopted per Ext X1 and Raj Kumar. Heads such as bystander expenses and loss of amenities were enhanced; the overall compensation was raised to Rs 1,01,000 with interest and costs. The insurer is ordered to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within 60 days, after which it shall be disbursed to the claimant.
Crl.MC.No.1070 of 2021 (C); Crl.MC.No.1069 of 2021 (C) This Kerala High Court judgment by Justice P. Somarajan, dated 5 March 2021, disposes two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.MC Nos. 1070/2021 and 1069/2021) arising from RC 01(E)/2021 and related FIRs. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged regular bail granted to accused 2 and 4 (Prabha Thomas and Dr. Reba Mary Thomas) in one matter and to accused 5 (Dr. Ria Ann Thomas) in another. The CBI argued the gravity of alleged malpractice—over 30,000 subscribers defrauded and involving approximately Rs. 1,600 crores—along with a vast, cross-state network, justified denial of bail at a preliminary stage of investigation. The trial court had extended bail after more than six months with stringent conditions, including appearances before the investigating officer every Saturday. The court reviews established bail principles, citing Prahlad Singh Bhati, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Ram Govind Upadhyay and Puran, and relies on Amarmani Tripathi lineage to articulate the factors guiding bail. It also references Prasanta Kumar Sarkar to underscore the caution required in exercising High Court discretion. While acknowledging the scale of alleged fraud and the slow pace of investigation (three witnesses examined so far), the judge nevertheless finds that the lower court balanced mitigating and aggravating considerations. Consequently, interference is unwarranted and the petitions are dismissed, upholding the bail orders.
The petitioners — Joseph Jacob and his two sons — seek to quash Ext.P7 and to direct reconsideration of Ext.P6 in light of Ext.P5 Purchase Notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, and in view of the Master Plan 2020 for Kottayam. They own 5777 square metres of land in Muttambalam and had intended to construct a building. Their case rests on the contention that the DTP Scheme of 1971 earmarked the land for parks/open space and that no decision was taken on the purchase notice within the statutory 60-day period, entitling them to a Building Permit dehors the DTP Scheme. The 3rd respondent argues that a Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTP Scheme) sanctioned in 1993 is to be deemed under the 2016 Act and that the area is to be acquired for park/open space; variation proceedings have been initiated by the Kottayam Municipal Council (minutes dated 24.10.2019 and 14.05.2020) with directions from the Chief Town Planner, and until variation is completed, the petitioners cannot be granted a Building Permit. The Court relies on earlier Kerala High Court decisions that compel reconsideration of applications where statutory steps are not completed within time, and that the relevant authority may act dehors the Master Plan during variation. The petition is disposed of by directing reconsideration of Ext.P6 by the appropriate respondent in accordance with law, within two months, with a corrigendum noting the correction of the respondent from 2nd to 3rd in the operative portion.
This is a motor accident claims appeal from the Kerala High Court (MACA No. 2526 of 2012) challenging an award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in OPMV 469/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The deceased, Anwar, husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant (a minor), died in a vehicle collision on 28.04.2007 when car KL‑12/C 2745 allegedly driven rashly hit a parked Tata Hitachi. The appellant-wife and other family members contend higher compensation than the Tribunal awarded (Rs.5,01,500 with 7.5% interest). The insurer admitted policy coverage while claiming the deceased was a gratuitous passenger; liability was found against the first respondent, with the insurer liable to pay the award. The core dispute concerns quantum: income of the deceased, appropriate future prospects, age, and survivor-dependent calculations. The High Court adopts widely accepted principles from landmark cases to determine income (Rs.6,000 notionally in 2007, with 40% future prospects), applies the Sarla Verma multiplier (16) as later approved by Pranay Sethi, and accounts for deductions for personal living expenses (1/3) along with conventional heads (funeral, estate, loss of consortium). Notably, it endorses 10% escalation on conventional heads and relies on recent SC decisions (Pranay Sethi, Rasmita Biswal) to grant enhanced compensation. The result is an enhanced total of Rs.7,49,200 with interest, to be distributed 10:60:30 among appellants, with the minor’s share deposited until majority.
Con.Case(C) No.122 of 2020 This Contempt of Court case arises from alleged willful disobedience of the High Court of Kerala’s directions in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.31850/2016 and connected matters, challenging the implementation of pension scheme amendments under the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) framework. The petitioners (petitioners in WP(C) 31850/2016) include a long roster of individuals listed as petitioners with various numbers, indicating extensive representation of members affected by the pension scheme changes. The respondents are EPFO authorities, notably Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The court frames the matter against the backdrop of a Supreme Court judgment in 2022, Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO, which upheld the legality of the 2014 amendment (G.S.R.609(E)) to the pension scheme and directed adjustments and readdowns to the scheme. The Kerala High Court, in light of that decision, held that the petitioners’ entitlement to disbursement of higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO under the 2022 ruling, though it closes the contempt petition. The decision references RC Gupta and others v. EPFO (2018) and culminates in a directive to EPFO to reconsider entitlement within a specified framework, while reserving rights under the Supreme Court’s guidance. The bench comprises a Division Bench (Anil K. Narendran, J. and Sophy Thomas, J.).
Manoj Jose, the Secretary of the Parathode Milk Producer's Co-operative Society (the petitioner), challenges a Memo of Charges (Ext.P6) issued by the Chairman of the 3rd respondent Sub Committee under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. He contends Ext.P6 is incompetent since it was issued by a Sub Committee rather than the Managing Committee, and that Ext.P8, the order removing him from service, was issued without any enquiry. The petitioner had responded with Ext.P7 objections; however, Ext.P8 was nonetheless issued. The respondents’ counsel concedes that no enquiry was conducted because the petitioner had virtually admitted the allegations, and prays for dismissal of the petition. The court notes that the Society proceeded to remove the petitioner without any enquiry, after the petitioner had addressed the charges, and finds the entire procedure vitiated. It invokes Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese (2020(4) KLT 129) to underscore the need for due process in disciplinary actions. Consequently, Ext.P8 is set aside. The court grants liberty to the Society to issue a fresh Memo of Charges and to conduct a proper enquiry. It also directs consideration of continued suspension, with subsistence allowance during the interim, and even reinstatement pending enquiry, within one month from the judgment.
Rajan M. Raphel, the appellant, was convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha under Sections 55(a) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for transporting 420 litres of spirit in a Ambassador Car on 3 October 2000 along Kochi-Madurai road at Pallivasal. The trial proceeded after the case was split and refiled as S.C. No.89/2005; the appellant faced trial while accused No.3 was acquitted. The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal, acquitting the appellant, on the core ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband substance seized at the scene was subjected to analysis in the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory and that crucial aspects of the chain-of-custody and seizure procedures were not established. The court highlighted several deficiencies: unexplained delay in producing the seized properties before the Court; seizure mahazar (Exh P1) lacking the seal’s description; forwarding note (Exh P4) not containing the specimen seal; lack of testimony from officers who handled the sample during transit; and absence of an arrest memo and arrest intimation, raising serious doubts about the arrest and the link to the seized sample. Relying on multiple precedents emphasizing prompt property production, seal verification, and link between seizure and analysis, the court held that the prosecution failed to sustain the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant; the appeal was allowed.
The appellant, P.K. Pushpakaran, was the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.1657/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained in an accident on 04.05.2004 while travelling in auto rickshaw KL 8/E 7540. The Tribunal held the respondents liable and awarded Rs. 2,32,527 (rounded to Rs. 2,32,600) with costs. The appellant argued that the quantum of compensation was not properly assessed, particularly the notional income of a coolie worker and the disability assessment; he relied on precedents to fix the monthly income at Rs. 4,500 (Ramachandrappa) and urged an appropriate multiplier (Sarla Verma). The insurer contested the claim as excessive and contested specific head amounts. The High Court re-examined the evidence, accepting Exhibit A13 and the Disability certificate as marking 15% functional disability, while noting the Tribunal had applied a lower disability percentage and notional income. Applying the multiplier of 14 and reconsidering heads such as loss of earnings, disability, by-stander expenses, extra nourishment, and loss of amenities, the Court increased the total compensation to Rs. 3,61,927, with further enhancement of Rs. 1,29,400, coupled with interest and costs. The appeal was allowed in part with directions for deposit of the enhanced amount before the Tribunal and disbursement to the appellant.
This is a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) by Jamal V.M and Jameela Jamal (the petitioners) seeking to transfer O.P. 181/2022 filed in the Family Court, Kattappana, to the Family Court at Thodupuzha. The underlying dispute arises from a matrimonial context between the respondents: Ashifa Basheer (wife of the 2nd respondent) and Jawahar Jamal (husband of the 1st respondent), with the petitioners being the parents of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners alleged that the Family Court, Kattappana is over 110 kilometers away from their residence, that both petitioners are elderly (60 and 52) and afflicted with illnesses, and that the 1st respondent has filed Annexure 1 seeking a decree for return of money and gold ornaments and resides in her parental home in Idukki, while the 2nd respondent is employed abroad. They argued transfer would alleviate inconvenience and ensure fair contest. The court references several Kerala High Court/Supreme Court authorities holding that the transfer of matrimonial disputes should consider the convenience of the woman and children, and notes that the law on transfer is no longer res integra. Ultimately, the court declines the transfer, while suggesting dispensation of personal appearance for the petitioners and directing the Family Court, Kattappana, to decide Annexure 1 in accordance with law.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2017 The Kerala High Court proceedings consolidate four matrimonial appeals (Mat.Appeal Nos. 444/2017, 445/2017, 446/2017, 1424/2017) arising from Family Court, Mavelikkara, challenging orders in O.P.(HMA)Nos.156/2013, 217/2013, 558/2015 and 736/2014. Vidya, the appellant-wife, sought a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, after the parties had been living separately since 2012 and had reached a mediated settlement on 07.11.2022. The court’s record shows the petitions were initially dismissed but, upon mediation and a consent memorandum, the parties prayed for mutual consent divorce and waivers of the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2). On 23.11.2022, the High Court, noting the genuine settlement and lack of likelihood of reconciliation, exercised its discretion, following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur to waive the cooling-off period and grant a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B, dissolving the marriage solemnized on 17.12.2007. The settlement also included a request to lift a prior attachment in O.P.(OS)No.736/2014 (Mat.Appeal No.1424/2017) and to notify Village Officer/Sub-Registrar. The judgment disposes of all four appeals, incorporating the memorandum dated 07.11.2022 as part of the final order and directing compliance with the settlement terms.
