DR. BENOY IDICULA BABU REP BY P.O.A HOLDER P. I BABU & ORS. ETC. versus DR. NISHA SAIRA BENOY & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 22-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
388                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
DR. BENOY IDICULA BABU REP BY P.O.A
HOLDER P. I BABU & ORS. ETC.
v.
DR. NISHA SAIRA BENOY & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11262-11264 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 22, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Divorce Act, 1869 – s.10-A – Matrimonial Dispute – Court
assisted mediation and conciliation – Held: Having regard to the
entire background of the long drawn litigation between the parties
and the fact that they have taken a conscious decision to part, there
is no need for them to go through the regular process – Marriage
between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by decree of
divorce by mutual consent – Deed of settlement to form part of the
decree – Application u/s.10-A, 1869 Act is allowed – Since the parties
have settled the dispute, the Passport Officer concerned is directed
to process the application duly filed by the respondent-mother for
the minor child and Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with the Regional
Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to be refunded to the
respondent – Various cases pending between the parties are disposed
of/dismissed/quashed.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The deed of settlement shall form part of the
decree. Having regard to the entire background of the long drawn
litigation between the parties and having regard to the fact that
they have taken a conscious decision to part, there is no need for
the parties to go through the regular process. Therefore, their
application under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869 is allowed
and their marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. The amount of Rs.1.25 crore paid by the husband to the
wife by way of permanent alimony shall not be treated as income
for the purpose of income tax. [Paras 6, 7][390-C-E]
1.2 Since the parties have settled the dispute, the Passport
Officer concerned is directed to process the application duly filed
by the respondent-mother for the minor child.  The application
shall not be rejected on the ground of any pending litigation, since
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 388
388
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
the parties have settled all the disputes. Since the parties have
settled the dispute, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with
the Regional Passport Officer Thiruvananthapuram shall be
refunded to the respondent. [Paras 8, 9][390-E-F]
1.3  In view of the settlement by the parties, the cases filed
before the High Court of Kerala and the case pending before the
Family Court, Tiruvalla are disposed of. The cases pending before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla and Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Ranni are disposed of.  The cases pending
before the High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No.7353/2015and
Crl.M.C.No.3194/2017 are dismissed. The cases pending before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram
and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, Kerala are
quashed. All proceedings initiated under the Indian Passport Act
shall be dropped. [Paras 11-14][391-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11262-
11264 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2017 of the High Court
of  Kerala at Ernakulam in Mat. Appeal Nos. 737, 956 and 955 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11265-11266 of 2018.
Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Karthik Jayashankar, Anshumaan
Bahadur, Advs. for the Appellants.
Manoj V. George,  Ms. Shilpa Liza George, B. D. Das, Vignesh
Ram K. M., Ms. Ashita Arora, Amit Kumar, Kamlendra Mishra, Sanand
Ramakrishnan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This is a case where this court successfully experimented a
new method of settlement, namely, court assisted mediation and
conciliation.
3. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the order
dated 29.3.2017 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Matrimonial
Appeal Nos.737, 955 and 956 of 2015.
4. Finding that there is an element of settlement, we initially
directed the parties for mediation. The Initial  attempt was unsuccessful.
Thereafter, this Court directed the parties to appear before this Court.
DR. BENOY IDICULA BABU REP BY P.O.A HOLDER P. I
BABU v. DR. NISHA SAIRA BENOY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
We had  long interaction with them.  Finally, on the monetary aspect, a
settlement has been arrived at, on the terms suggested by the Court.
Still there were some minor disputes.
5. We
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.