IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19850 of 2009(R)
1. JANCY RITAMMA GEORGE @ JANCY AVARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAMES.K.AVARAN, S/O.KUNJUVAREED,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.(C).No.19850 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with an interesting
prayer. She has disputes with the respondent, her former
husband. A decree for divorce has already been obtained by her
from the Family Court and the said decree for divorce has been
upheld by this court under Ext.P2 judgment. No matter between
the parties is pending before this court now. Still the petitioner
has come to this court. What does she want this court to do? The
short prayer is that a mediation/settlement may be attempted by
this court in two matters pending before the subordinate courts.
The first is a petition pending before the Family Court, Thrissur
filed by the petitioner claiming amounts from the respondent. The
other is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act initiated against her by the respondent herein.
These cases are pending before two different courts. It is prayed
that directions may be issued to attempt a mediation/settlement
before this court. The petitioner is willing to settle the disputes on
W.P.C No.19850/09 2
any reasonable terms to purchase peace so that she can
peacefully continue her employment abroad, submits counsel.
2. We are not persuaded to agree that it would be
expedient, necessary or possible to grant a prayer like the
instant one except, of course, when extraordinary features are
available. The powers under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India are sweeping and it is not lack a jurisdiction
essentially that persuades us to come to the conclusion that we
do. But there must be orders and methods in proceedings. The
petitioner can certainly request the Family Court to refer the
matter for counselling again if necessary. When the matter
comes up before the counsellor, certainly the petitioner can
make a request for a comprehensive settlement of all
outstanding disputes including the dispute regarding the cheque.
In the alternative, the petitioner can request the learned
Magistrate to refer the dispute to the Lok Adalath under the
provisions of the Kerala Legal Services Authorities Act. The
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
a compoundable offence and the learned Magistrate can
certainly, if he sees reasons to do so, direct the parties to the Lok
Adalath. At the Lok Adalath also, the petitioner can request the
W.P.C No.19850/09 3
Lok Adalath to attempt a comprehensive settlement of all
outstanding disputes.
3. The petitioner has a submission that the prosecution
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is about to
commence. She has already filed an application for exemption, it
is submitted. No orders have been passed on such application,
she points out. It is for her to insist that appropriate orders must
be passed on such application and if the request is not heeded to,
the avenues of grievance redressal are open to her. It is not
necessary for us to express any opinion on this aspect.
4. In the result, we dismiss this petition but with the
specific observation that the petitioners can avail of the
opportunities/fora referred above to arrive at a comprehensive
settlement of the outstanding disputes between her and the
respondent.
5. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C No.19850/09 4
W.P.C No.19850/09 5
W.P.C No.19850/09 6
R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
18/06/2009