High Court Kerala High Court

Asha vs Manjunath on 12 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Asha vs Manjunath on 12 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 37 of 2005()


1. ASHA, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JAYALEKSHMI (MINOR), AGED 5,

                        Vs



1. MANJUNATH, MAYORAM VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :12/03/2008

 O R D E R
                                K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                        --------------------------------------------
                          C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005 D
                        --------------------------------------------
                        Dated this the 12th March, 2008

                                      O R D E R

The petitioners filed E.P.No.77 of 2003 in O.S.No.75 of 2002, on

the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The petitioners are the wife and

daughter of the respondent. The case pending before the Family Court

was referred to the Lok Adalath and the parties settled the dispute. The

relevant portion of the award dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Lok Adalath

reads as follows:

“In full and final settlement of all claims in the suit, the
first defendant today returned to the first plaintiff the fixed
deposit certificate in her name for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One
lakh fifty thousand only) and paid Rs.80,000/- (Rs.Eighty
thousand) only and he also returned her 105 sovereigns of
gold ornaments. He also deposited Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One
lakh fifty thousand only) in the name of minor 2nd plaintiff in
Parippally branch of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank
Ltd., for a period of 15 years and the said amount is in full
and final settlement of her maintenance and marriage
expenses. The first plaintiff is allowed to take the interest of
the said amount for the maintenance of the minor. The first
plaintiff will not claim any further maintenance in future from
the first defendant. The first plaintiff and the first defendant
filed a joint petition for divorce today. Therefore all the rights
and liabilities in between the parties stands closed.”

On the same date, as per the order in O.P.(HMA)No.479 of 2002, the joint

petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was recorded

and divorce was granted.

C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005

:: 2 ::

2. The Execution Petition was filed by the petitioners contending

that the respondent had withdrawn the interest from the fixed deposit

account and had appropriated the same unto himself. The date on

which the interest was withdrawn was not stated in the Execution

Petition. It is stated in the Execution Petition that in respect of another

account, the cheque book and pass book remained with the respondent

and they were not returned. The court below by the order impugned

held that all the rights and liabilities between the parties were finally

settled and satisfied and nothing remains to be done. It was held that

the Execution Petition is not maintainable. In the Memorandum of Civil

Revision Petition it is stated that Rs.30,000/- was illegally drawn from the

fixed deposit account by the respondent after passing the consent

decree. This contention is denied by the respondent. A counter affidavit

is filed in this Revision and a letter dated 27.1.2007, issued by the

Branch Manager of the Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank, is produced as

Ext.R1(b). Ext.R1(b) shows that interest for the period from 29.1.1998 to

29.5.2002 amounting to Rs.28,426/- was transferred to the account of

the respondent at the request of the first petitioner. I am not relying on

Ext.R1(b), since that document was not produced before the executing

court and since no application is filed to receive the document as

additional evidence.

C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005

:: 3 ::

3. The award was passed by the Lok Adalath on 13.9.2002. The

petitioners did not adduce any evidence before the court below to

substantiate that amounts were withdrawn by the respondent after

passing of the award by the Lok Adalath thereby defeating the terms of

the compromise. The remedy of the petitioners is not to file an

Execution Petition because there is nothing to be executed in the

decree. The court below was justified in dismissing the Execution

Petition. No interference is called for.

The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as

to costs.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/