IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 28 of 2004(Y) ---------------------- MC.113/2001 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN M.C.: ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMEELA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. AMOOTTI, PARAPPOYIL HOUSE, NEDIYANADU AMSOM DESOM, NARIKUNI P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.SMITHA.V. RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER IN M.C: ----------------------------------------- MOOSAKOYA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MARAKKAR, PUTHIYOTTUM POYI VEEDU, NEDIYANADU AMSOM DESOM, NARIKKUNI P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO.8 OF 2008 MA NO. 548 OF 2007 MA NO. 723 OF 2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== R.P.(FC )NO. 28 OF 2004, MAT APPEAL NO.548 OF 2007, MAT APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2004 & MAT APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2009 ORDER Basant,J. These proceedings are between the spouses. The wife is the appellant in all the three Mat.Appeals and the revision petitioner in R.P.F.C.No.28/04. We had actually heard the learned counsel on merits in all the four proceedings; but towards the fag end of the discussions at the Bar, the parties assisted by their counsel have been able to settle all their outstanding disputes. 2. R.P.F.C.No.28/04 is against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C turning down the claim for maintenance filed by the wife. She and three children had claimed maintenance. Maintenance was granted to the three children; but the claim for maintenance of the wife was rejected. All the children have now RPFC 28/2004 & Mat.appeal Nos. 8/04,548/2007 & 723/08 -2- attained majority and there is no dispute between the parties about the claim for maintenance of the children which was granted by the Family Court. The Family Court had turned down the claim of the wife for maintenance on the ground that she was guilty of adultery. I.A.No.6421/09 is filed by the parties to report settlement in that R.P.F.C. 3. Mat.Appeal No.548/07 is filed by the wife against the order passed by the Family Court in O.P.No.593/03. That was an application filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. The prayer for dissolution was turned down by the Family Court and I.A.No.1762/09 has been filed in Mat.Appeal No.548/07 to report settlement. 4. Mat Appeal No.8 of 2004 is filed by the wife against the order passed by the Family court in O.P.No.301/2001. That petition was filed by the husband/respondent herein claiming a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Though he alleged the adultery and resisted the claim for maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure successfully RPFC 28/2004 & Mat.appeal Nos. 8/04,548/2007 & 723/08 -3- on the plea of adultery, in O.P.No.301/2001 the husband prayed for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. That petition was opposed but the same was allowed by the Family Court by the impugned order. I.A.No.1761/2009 is filed by the parties to report compromise/settlement. 5.Mat Appeal No.723/2008 is filed by the wife to assail the order passed in O.P.No.237/2006. That was a suit for partition filed by the respondent/husband. He had claimed that an item of the property acquired in their joint names during the matrimony belongs equally to both of them. The wife had resisted the prayer for partition on the ground that the said item of property though purchased in the joint names of the spouses was purchased making use of the exclusive funds of the wife – given to her by her father. The Family Court did not accept that contention and proceeded to pass the impugned order directing partition. I.A.No.1711/2009 is filed by the parties to report composition. 6. The parties now agree that divorce can be granted as RPFC 28/2004 & Mat.appeal Nos. 8/04,548/2007 & 723/08 -4- claimed by the wife under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. Consequent to such divorce, the wife agrees that she has received the entire amounts payable under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights & Divorce) Act and that she does not want to claim past or future maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the husband. The husband agrees that he does not now need the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties further agree that the property which is sought to be partitioned in O.P.No.237/2006 belongs exclusively to the wife and the same is not available for partition between the parties. In comprehensive settlement of all the disputes between them, the wife has already paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the husband and the husband acknowledges the receipt of the same. The joint statement filed in all the four proceedings is duly signed by the parties and counter signed by their counsel. We are satisfied that the settlement is fair and just and the same can be accepted. RPFC 28/2004 & Mat.appeal Nos. 8/04,548/2007 & 723/08 -5- 7. In the result a) Mat appeal Nos.8/2004, 548/2007 and 723/2008 are allowed in terms of the joint compromise statement filed in each of these cases. The decree for partition is set aside. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights is set aside. Divorce is granted to the appellant-wife under the dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. b) R.P.(FC)No.28/2004 is dismissed and the impugned order rejecting the claim for maintenance is upheld in the light of the agreement between the parties vacating the finding that the wife is living in adultery; c) joint statement filed in each of these cases shall be appended to the appellate decrees in the Mat appeals and the order in the R.P.(FC) respectively. R. BASANT, JUDGE ks. M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE RPFC 28/2004 & Mat.appeal Nos. 8/04,548/2007 & 723/08 -6- ks.