AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of the Family Court submitted that before the Family Court, the petitioner as well as Dr.Ignatious Mary, who treated the de-facto complainant for her ovarian cyst was examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and on the side of the de-facto complainant, she examined herself as R.W.1 and marked 10 documents. The trial Court after full-fledged trial, by relying upon Exs.P4 and P16 letters given by the de-facto complainant in her own handwriting had pardoned her activities and the messages between A2 and the de-facto complainant, which triggered the issue of matrimonial life, granted a decree for divorce and after obtaining the decree, the de-facto complainant had married and living peacefully, it is contended.
The petitioner further submitted that by deed of exchange dated 17.02.2023 all the articles including the gold jewels have been handed over to the de-facto complainant.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that for obtaining transfer from Velankanni to Tirunelveli, the petitioner had used the de-facto complainant's employment as a reason. Further, it is submitted that though the petitioner has been making allegations that there was some relationship between the de-facto complainant and A2, in the evidence before the Family Court, he had denied the same and that the jewels and articles have not been so far handed over.
To get further instructions as to whether any appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Family Court and also about the marital status of the de- facto complainant, the learned counsel seeks short accommodation. Post on 25.08.2023. Interim order already granted is extended till then.