IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 882 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ MC. NO.72/2009 of JUDL.M.F.C.-I,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SHEEBA N.K., AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE KADARKUTTY, NAMBIYPUNNILATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM EAST, THRISSUR DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.13/46, PANAYAPILLY, COCHIN. 2. MOHAMMAD TAHA @ SACHU, AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER NAMBIYPUNNILATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM EAST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT.H.NO.13/46 PANAYAPILLY, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- KALAM T.M., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOOSA, NATIONAL TARPAULIN COMPANY (NOW ALSO CALLED AS HOTEL PALACE) SALMA MANZIL, KUNDANOOR, MARADU. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN M.C. 72/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ERNAKULAM DT.30.4.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... C.O.C. No.882 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Contempt Case is filed for violation of compromise decree wherein respondent undertook to pay Rs.26.5 lakhs to the first petitioner. This court passed an interim order on 27.10.2011 directing the respondent to pay Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. Even this amount is not paid by the respondent and what he has paid is only Rs.2 lakhs. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount payable to the petitioner is nothing but the amount paid by her to the respondent at the time of marriage, which is a term of the compromise based on which decree is passed. The respondent also has created charge on his property making recovery fairly difficult for the first petitioner. It is stated in court that the second petitioner who is the son of the first petitioner and the respondent, is undergoing treatment for cancer and the respondent is meeting the cost. 2. After hearing both sides and in view of the concession made C.O.C. 882/2011 2 by the first petitioner to give six months' time to the respondent to pay the amount, we close the Contempt Case with direction to the respondent to pay balance Rs.3 lakhs in terms of interim order dated 27.10.2011 on or before 20.12.2011 and the entire balance amount with interest at 6% p.a. on or before 30th June, 2012. In the event of default in either of these, the first petitioner can apply for revival of the Contempt Case and in that event, the respondent shall without any further orders surrender in this court on the posting date of the petition to revive the Contempt Case. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge True copy P.S. to Judge pms