IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 725 of 2007() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2007 IN OP.338/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2 IN OP.NO.338/06: -------------------------------------------- T.KUMHI MOIDEEN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN KUTTY MUSLYAR, 68, THALAPPIL, PARAPANAGADI. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1 IN OP 338/06: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. METHIYIL SUBAIDA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.ENTHEEN KUTTY, KARINKAPARA, OMACHAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK P.O., OMCHAPUZHA. 2. THALAPPIL MUHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, P.O.CHETTIPADI, NEDUVA AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.3102 OF 2007 IN MAT. APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2007. DISMISSED 28.3.2008 Sd/-(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.P. No.338 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The appellant and respondents are present. The second respondent is the husband of the first respondent. The appellant is the second respondent in O.P. No.338 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The first respondent herein filed O.P. No.337 of 2006 and O.P. No.338 of 2006 against the appellant and second respondent for past maintenance and for return of gold ornaments and money respectively. The appellant is the father-in- law of the petitioner. The Family Court allowed O.P. No.337 of 2006 and directed the husband of the petitioner to pay past maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month for 36 months totalling to Rs.43,200/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. O.P. No.338 of 2006 was also allowed directing the respondents therein jointly and severally to repay Rs.1,40,000/- and also Rs.1,25,580/- being the value of 19 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments, totalling to Rs.2,65,560/-. Mat. Appeal No.725/2007 2 2. The first respondent/husband did not choose to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The wife also filed a maintenance case, M.C. No.341 of 2006 which was decreed directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.800/- per month to the child, the second petitioner. The husband filed unnumbered R.P.(F.C.) of 2008 against the above said order. 3. As per the direction of this Court, the parties appeared on 5.2.2008. We had detailed discussion with the parties on all the issues between them. Since the matter could not be settled on that day, we directed the parties to be present before this Court today. Today also, we had lengthy discussion with the parties. We are happy to note that the parties have finally arrived at a settlement. 4. In full and final settlement of all the claims arising in O.P. Nos.337 and 338 of 2006, the respondents in the Original Petitions have agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner therein on or before 15.7.2008 and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of five months thereafter. The first respondent/husband shall pay Rs.1000/- towards maintenance of his wife and child for a period of eight months, commencing from April, 2008 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.750/- each Mat. Appeal No.725/2007 3 till the wife remarries and the child attains majority. The amount shall be paid on or before the 5th of every month. Regarding the adequacy of the maintenance awarded to the child, the first respondent/wife is at liberty to seek modification of the order, if necessary, before the Family Court after five years. In the light of the settlement as above, the parties will not pursue the litigations initiated by them. We find that the criminal proceedings also are hence to be terminated. Accordingly, M.C. No.341of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram and M.C. No.682 of 2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Parappanangadi filed under Section 498 A I.P.C. are quashed. If the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- ordered by this Court is not paid within the stipulated time, the appeal will stand dismissed, the orders under challenge shall stand revived and the first respondent/wife is at liberty to realise the amounts in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ Mat. Appeal No.725/2007 4 KURAIN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. Mat. Appeal No.725/2007 JUDGMENT 28TH MARCH, 2008 Mat. Appeal No.725/2007 5