IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33969 of 2008(S)
1. PONNAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELSY, AGED 48 YEARS, PULIYASSERI HOUSE
... Respondent
2. PRINCY, D/O.PONNAN AGED 17 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.R.DIVAKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.SUNIL NAIR (PALAKKAT)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/12/2008
O R D E R
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.33969 of 2008-S
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
The writ petitioner, Shri Ponnan, married the first respondent herein.
Subsequently, some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. A
petition was filed by the wife for return of the gold ornaments and
maintenance and the petitioner herein filed a petition for divorce against the
wife. While the matter was pending before the Family Court, a
compromise was arrived at. Ext.P1 is the copy of the compromise petition.
(O.P.No.1051/2004 shown therein is a mistake for O.P.No.1406/2004.)
Based on Ext.P1 compromise petition, Ext.P2 order was passed. One of the
compromise in Ext.P1 is that a joint petition for divorce must be filed by
both the parties and the petitioner herein has to execute a settlement deed
after receipt of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The wife filed the execution
petition for getting the settlement deed executed, after depositing an amount
of Rs.4 lakhs. The husband’s objection is two fold: (i) that value of one
third of the property given to him as per the compromise would come to
Rs.5 lakhs as against Rs.4 lakhs; and (ii) that a joint petition for compromise
WPC 33969/2008 -2-
has not been filed by the wife.
2. The wife has filed a counter affidavit.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The objection
regarding the amount to be paid to the husband for execution of the
settlement deed, is not liable to be reopened at this stage, since it is a
subject matter of compromise acted upon by the court and both parties and
their counsel have signed also. The other objection is factually incorrect
because the wife has filed a joint petition. When the matter was posted for
appearance of the parties, it is the petitioner who failed to appear. Thus, no
grounds are made out for granting any relief in favour of the petitioner.
Even though he submitted that Ext.P4 objection was filed against the
execution petition, it is pointed out that an objection was filed earlier and
the same was dismissed by the court below on merits. The present objection
is only to protract the proceedings.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition which is
accordingly dismissed.
( P.R.Raman, Judge.)
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/