Kerala High Court
Athira S vs Rahulkumar R on 13 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 23RD POUSHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2021 IN OP(HMA) NO.1003 OF
2017 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
ATHIRA S., AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. SUBHASH KEERTHI BHAVANAM HOUSE, PANNIVIZHA,
ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 676 503.
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAHULKUMAR R., AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KARURMADATHIL THEKKETHIL (HOUSE),
PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., THEKKEKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA 690 107.
BY ADV SHRI.SREEDEV U
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2242
MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara - which dismissed OP(HMA) No.1003/2017 filed by the appellant herein, seeking that the alleged marriage between her and the respondent be declared to be null and void within the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("the Act" for short).
2. The learned Family Court dismissed the Original Petition, holding that none of the ingredients, as required under Sections 24 or 25 of the Act have been attracted, entering a conclusion that the appellant had contracted the marriage with full volition.
3. The appellant alleges that the findings of the learned Family Court are not correct and that she had been lured into appearing before the Registrar of Marriage by the respondent, through coercion and fraud as construed within the ambit of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and hence that she was entitled to have the marriage declared void.
2026:KER:2242 MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022 3
4. We do not require to enter into the merits of the rival contentions in detail because, pending this matter, the parties were referred to mediation at their request and they have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. We have examined the Memorandum of Agreement and it is conceded by learned counsel on both sides, as also recorded therein, that the respondent has agreed that the marriage between him and the appellant can be declared as null and void.
6. Sri.Sreedev U. - learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that though his client had impelled contentions before the learned Family Court, he is now agreeable that this Court can invoke the provisions of all Section 25(iii) of the Act because, he is willing to give benefit of doubt to the appellant that her consent for marriage perhaps was on account of a confusion or a mistake.
7. We notice that the Memorandum of Settlement has been signed by the parties and attested by their learned counsel. We, therefore, find no reason not to accept the said settlement.
8. As said above, the respondent has specifically agreed that the marriage can be declared null and void and this can only 2026:KER:2242 MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022 4 mean that he also agrees that the consent of the appellant for the marriage was vitiated on account of the factors as available in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
9. In the afore circumstances, we allow this appeal in terms of the agreement between the parties; and order that the same shall form a part of this judgment.
10. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court is set aside; and we declare that the marriage between the parties is null and void within the purlieus of Section 25(iii) of the Act.
Needless to say, all the other terms of the agreement between the parties shall be complied with by them implicitly.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu 2026:KER:2242 MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureS A1 and TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AND AII RESPONDENT AND HIS PRESENT MARITAL STATUS ALONG WITH THE CHILD DATED NIL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH CoufIT OF KEIIALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat ADI]eal No 158 Of 2022 Alhira s : Appellant Rahu[kumar R Respondent MEMO ANDLJM OF AGFLEEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 0F 25 oF TF+E civlL pRoCEDtJRE (A[rERrvATi\/E DISpuTE ® RESOI.IJTIONl, RULES, 2008:
The dispute between the parties are settled on the following terms:-
1. Respondent Rahulkumar R has agreed that the marriage between him and Smt.Athira S can be declared as null and void.
2. Respondent has further agreed that he shall co-operate with the appellant to produce the copy of the judgment of this Hon.ble Court (Mat Appeal No.158/2022) before the appropriate authorities to remove the marriage Certificate from on-Iine/Registration portal.
pctz;ffi Ftesponderrt
Athira S Rahu,kuma2FT
-2-
3. Appellant has agreed that she has no grievance with regard to CC No.1203/2018 (arising out of crime No.2602/2017 of Adoor Police Station) pending before the jFCM-I, Adoor and that she is ready to file an affidavit in Crl.MC to be filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, to quash the above CC No.1203/2018.
4. The above affidavit shall be furnished by her on or before 0 10/12/2025.
5. The respondent has agreed to transfer Rs,45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) to Account No. 50100582637546 maintained by the appellant in HDFC Bank.
6. Both parties agree that they nave no further craim between each other.
7. Lt is apreed by both the parties that the Appeal can be disposed off in terms of this agreement.
Re§pondlent 2;`TitEL:e! dfty.....
Athira S Rahulkumar R -3-
8. If either of the parties violate any of the conditions in the agreement, the aggrieved party is free to get the agreement executed through the Coilrt.
Dated tfiis the 2Ist day of Nievember, 2025.
Petltiorrer Respondeut
crty# fyie.....
Rahulkumar R
`,apJ±-
&sfro;h¥
Counsel for the petitioner
SR`IccyG_v. u
Counsel for the Respondent
CV`/\oau|aoi6
®