IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 420 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------------ [O.P.NO.637/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA] .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- CHELLAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, M/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, VANACHIRA VEEDU, KALLUMALA P.O., THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYNI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT "SREYAS", PADINJATTEKIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU VADAKKE VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690 522. 2. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT VANACHIRA VEEDU, KALLUMALA P.O., THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 690 110. 3. GANGA, W/O.RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT KOCHUPURAYIL, KUNNAMANGALAM VADAKKE, CHETTIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK – 690 106. BY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Surendra Mohan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.420 of 2011 with C.M.Appl.No.1151 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal, with an application seeking condonation of delay, is filed by one of the respondents in an original petition which was disposed of on settlement by parties. The Family Court passed a decree on consent of parties. Therefore, an appeal from that decree is barred under the first limb of sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. That embargo is similar to the one contained in sub-section 3 of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the provisions contained in Rules 3 and 3A of Order XXIII CPC, we are of the view that the question relating to the recording of a consent by the court of first instance or a MA420/11 -: 2 :- superior court before which the consent is made, is a matter entirely within its jurisdiction and is not left to be interfered in collateral proceedings or in an appeal against the decree. This is the principle on which the restrictive provisions are made in Section 96(3) of the CPC and Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the appeal itself is not maintainable. As a consequence, we reject the application for condonation of delay and hence, reject the appeal. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- K.Surendra Mohan, Judge. Sha/1907