IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 736 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.7/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM.V.K, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ENIKUTTY HAJI, VALAYANKADAN HOUSE, OORAKAM YARAMPADI, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ENIKUTTY HAJI, AGED 66 YEARS, VALAYANKADAN HOUSE, OORAKAM YARAMPADI, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. AMEERA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, CHEMMALAKKUNDAN HOUSE,CHULLIPARAMBA, VENGARA P.O.676 304, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMA SHADA, AGED 6 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL SALAM, CHEMMALAKKUNDAN HOUSE, CHULLIPARAMBA, VENGARA P.O.-676 304, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER AMEERA). 3. FATHIMA NITHA (AGED 1 YEAR),D/O.ABDUL SALAM, CHEMMALAKKUNDAN HOUSE, CHULLIPARAMBA, VENGARA P.O.-676 304, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs MA. NO. 736/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I:COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE II:COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST APPELLANT AND THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 4/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- Mat.A.No.736 of 2011 & C.M.Appl.No.2408 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay of more than 300 days. The appeal is directed against a compromise decree. The plea is that the compromise and the agreement were signed while the appellant was mentally sick. We are not impressed to accept that plea, now, having regard to Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the guiding principles of jurisprudence, that question, relatable to recording of a compromise, has to be raised before the court which records the compromise. In certain cases, it may be open to that court to re-open the act of recording the compromise. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to seek such reliefs, this appeal is dismissed as groundless. C.M.Appl.No.2408 of 2011 is also accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/29.11