Nissam v. Nishamol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2015/19TH ASHADHA, 1937 RPFC.No. 22 of 2015 () ----------------------- MC 150/2012 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN M.C: ----------------------------------------------- NISSAM, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.SHAUKATH, RESIDING AT KANEPARAMBIL, KAKKAZHAM.P.O. AMBALAPPUZHA SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.V.BEENA SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN M.C:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. NISHAMOL, AGED 23 YEARS W/O.NISSAM, THAIPARAMBIL VEEDU, ALLISSERY WARD ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE (NOW RESIDING AT PANICKAL VEEDU CHANGANASSERY MUKKU, ERAVUKADU WARD SANATHANAPURAM.P.O., KALARCODE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK ALAPPUZHA.
2. FIDHA FATHIMA, AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.NISSAM, THAIPARAMBIL VEEDU ALLISSERY WARD ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE (NOW RESIDING AT PANICKAL VEEDU CHANGANASSERY MUKKU, ERAVUKADU WARD SANATHANAPURAM.P.O., KALARCODE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK ALAPPUZHA.[REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT] * 3. STATE OF KERALA (DELETED) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
* 3rd RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 24.02.2015 IN RPFC NO.22/15.
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STU
K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C) No.22 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2015
ORDER
During the pendency of this revision petition, the matter was referred to mediation on the request of both parties and in the mediation, the matter in dispute has been settled amicably and the terms and conditions are attached along with the report filed by the Mediator. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks a clarification in clause No.2 so as to enable the 1st respondent to withdraw the monthly interest from the bank as the 2nd respondent is a minor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in permitting the 1st respondent to withdraw the monthly interest from the bank for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Thus, in view of the submissions at the Bar, the 1st respondent is allowed to withdraw the monthly interest from the bank for and on
R.P.(F.C) No.22 of 2015 behalf of the 2nd respondent and this also will form a part of the terms of settlement. Thus, the terms of settlement are recorded and this RPFC will stand closed.
Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge