IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22414 of 2008(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP.21/2008 IN OP.111/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOYCE BEHANAN, 46 YEARS KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE VADAVATHOOR KARA, VIJAYA PURAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK, R/A.ERAPLACKAL HOUSE VETTIPURAM EAST PO., PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- BEHANAN JOHN, S/O.C.T. JOHN KUNNUUMPURATHU HOUSE, MANAMKARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON 18.9.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS OP NO.111/06 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 1.12.06 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 1.12.06 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.21/08 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA,. EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO.21/08 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.22414 of 2008-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ petition is filed at the instance of the judgment debtor in E.P.No.21/2008 in O.P.No.111/2006 of the Family Court, Kottayam. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. They have two daughters, viz. Karan Alza Behnan and Priya Sara Behnan. The respondent approached the Family Court claiming various reliefs against the wife. It was preceded by the disharmony in their marital relationship. Before the Family Court, the matter was settled between the parties as per a compromise petition which is produced herein as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the decree passed consequently by the Family Court. Since the petitioner did not comply with clause 6 of the said decree, the respondent filed execution petition, Ext.P4, to which the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objections. Finally, overruling the objections, Ext.P6 order has been passed by the Family Court which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on either side. WPC 22414/2008 -2- The borne of contention is regarding the relevant clause 6 of the compromise decree whereby the petitioner was obliged to transfer in favour of the eldest daughter 1 acre 85 cents of land as per a settlement deed, within 10 days of the date of passing of the decree. In Ext.P6, the court below has ordered that the petitioner in the execution petition, the decree holder will produce the draft document and stamp paper with registration fee before court on or before 10.7.2008. 3. The Family Court has passed the order after considering various aspects including the objection filed by the wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is that after the execution of the document, the property may be transferred immediately by the daughter and therefore at least till the marriage of the daughter some conditions should be imposed restraining her from disposing/transferring the property. It was also submitted that the petitioner should be given life interest till the delivery of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that he is bound by the decree and no further conditions other than that is envisaged by the compromise petition and the decree can be imposed by the court below, obviously. WPC 22414/2008 -3- 4. We find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. It is well settled that the Family Court cannot go behind the decree. The decree as such is liable to be executed. Even though in Ext.P5 various objections have been raised, in para 3, it was observed by the Family Court that “though such an elaborate objection was filed, the respondent did not make any effort at the time of hearing to support the contentions.” Even the execution of the decree has been objected. But those objections have not been pursued therein or in this writ petition. Going by clause 6 of the compromise petition Ext.P2, the petitioner had to execute a settlement deed within 10 days of the date of passing of the compromise decree, in respect of 1 acre 85 cents of property shown in plan B in favour of the daughter Karan Alsa Behnan. No restraints/conditions have been preferred or agreed upon by the parties either in clause 6 or in other parts of the compromise petition. The compromise decree has been passed accordingly and we find no enabling rules to provide any restraints on the power of alienation of the daughter as now demanded by the petitioner. Being so, the contention belatedly raised at this stage by the petitioner that such conditions should be imposed, does not deserve any merit. The Family WPC 22414/2008 -4- Court has rightly rejected the objections. It cannot be said that the terms of the compromise are vague, but going by the terms they are very clear and plain and admits of no other interpretation. The objection that instead of the respondent, the daughter should have come up with the execution petition, was also considered by the Family Court and the same has also been rejected rightly by the court. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/