IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 146 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN Mat.Appeal.329/2006 Dated 22/05/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SMT.PONNAMMA K.N., D/O.V.K.NARAYANA PANICKER, AIKULATHU HOUSE, NEEDUMKAUNNAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. VENUNATHAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA KAVALA.P.O., PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 537. 2. CHELLAMMA, AGED 80 YEARS, M/O.VENUNATHAN NAIR, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA KAVALA P.O., PAIPPADU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTYAM-686537. ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE FOR R1 SMT.S.SREENI FOR R1 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C) No. 146 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. A matrimonial appeal, to which the petitioner and respondents were parties, was settled by Annexure A1 judgment. Clause (iii) of paragraph 2 of the said judgment reads as follows: “iii. Sri.Venunathan Nair submits that in case he gets any ancestral property from his mother, the same will be settled in the name of the children and the children can enjoy the same after his death. It is also submitted that in case Sri.Venunathan Nair has any other property that will also accrue to the benefit of the children Arunkumar and Ajithkumar after his death.” 2. In this petition it is alleged that contrary to the aforesaid terms of settlement, the second respondent has alienated her property by Annexure A4. According to the petitioner, such a document has been executed only to defeat the terms of Annexure A1 and thus, the respondents have committed contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act warranting proceedings against them. 3. However, from clause (iii) of Annexure A1 extracted above, we notice that the undertaking as provided therein binds only the first respondent, whereas the property belonged to the second respondent. Therefore, she is not bound by the aforesaid terms of settlement. In Cont.Case.146/11 2 such circumstances, even if she has alienated her property, such a transaction cannot be said to be in terms of settlement incorporated in Annexure A1. Therefore, we are unable to see any act on the part of the respondents warranting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. This Contempt Petition is only to be dismissed and we do so. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs