IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 875 of 2008()
1. ABDUL JASEEM, S/O.K.M.UMMAR,
... Petitioner
2. K.M.UMMAR, AKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. LAILA UMMAR, W/O.K.M.UMMAR,
Vs
1. SAMARNA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.875 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the
impugned order passed by the Family Court directing them to pay a
total amount of Rs.6,02,000/- along with interest on the principal
amount of Rs.6 lakhs. This direction has been issued after giving due
credit for the counter claim raised for return of 64 grams of gold
ornaments.
2. The matter has been pending before this Court. The
parties now report that they have settled all their outstanding
disputes. A joint compromise petition has been filed as
I.A.No.3027/2009. The counsel pray that the said joint compromise
petition may be allowed, this appeal may be allowed and the impugned
decree may be set aside recording the fact that all claims and counter
claims have been settled and satisfied. Both counsel submit that it
may be clarified that this compromise shall not affect the rights of the
parties regarding custody of the child or the right of the child to claim
maintenance.
3. We have gone through the compromise statement. We are
Mat.A.No.875/08 -2-
satisfied that the same can be accepted and I.A.No.3027/09 can be
allowed.
4. In the result:
(a) I.A.No.3027/09 is allowed. The said joint
compromise petition shall be annexed to the
appellate decree.
(b) The Mat.Appeal is allowed.
(c) The impugned order is set aside. It is recorded that
the claims and counter claims raised in
O.P.No.629/07 have been settled and satisfied.
(d) It is made clear that this settlement shall not affect
the rights of the child now in the custody of the
respondent to claim maintenance or the right of the
first appellant to claim custody in respect of the
child. Appropriate contentions can be raised and
appropriate decisions of the court solicited on those
aspects by the parties.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn