IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3388 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.NO: 706/2008 AND OP.NO: 573/2008 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .............................. PETITIONER (S) : ----------------------- R.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AYIRATHUVILA VEEDU, CHATHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ LAJA, D/O.VISWANATHA PILLAI, LALITHALAYAM, CHARUKADU, CHEMMAKKAD PO, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R SMT.V.V.RISANI SRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV OPFC NO.3388 OF 2011 (R) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE OP.573/08 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2 : COPOY OF THE OP(HMA) NO.706/.2008 WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OP.573/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE AWARD DT.23.6.2010 IN LOK ADALATH CASE NO.1371/2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DEPOSIT RECEIPT DT.25.01.2011 OF SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE CASH CERTIFICATE DT.23.4.2011 OF FEDERAL BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.573/08 DT.30.05.2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT ,KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.3388 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.O.P.Nos.706/08 and 573/08 before the Family court, Kollam reached the Lok Adalath as L.A. Case No.1371/10. That led to a settlement. It contains two terms. First is that the husband agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs in favour of the minor child for his future maintenance, the nominee being the mother and she is entitled to receive monthly interest for and on behalf of the minor for his maintenance. That deposit was to be made within a period of two months. The second clause of the agreement was that the husband has to pay Rs.5 lakhs within five months from the date of that agreement and award, in full and final settlement of all claims between the parties. In addition to that, the parties agreed to file a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. OPFC.3388/11 2 2. Controversies arose when the matter came up for filing Section 13 B petition. It was attempted to be pointed out by the husband that the second clause to Ext.P4 agreement was not agreed to but was an addendum inserted without his consent. The court below called for a report from the Lok Adalath and it was promptly reported that clause No.2 was also written down in the bottom portion of the settlement and the settlement was signed by the parties and the members of the Lok Adalath, including the judicial officer and the counsel for the parties. The explanation to that effect is available at pages 25 and 26 of this paper book. We have gone through that. We find no reason for the husband to wriggle out of his liability to pay Rs.5 lakhs which he ought to have paid within five months from the date of the award of the Lok adalath. 3.The husband, however, wanted the family court to take it that clause (2) of the settlement was not binding. That led to the impugned Ext.P7 order. Having considered the contents of Ext.P4 and the Lok Adalath award and going by the report OPFC.3388/11 3 given by the Lok Adalath available at pages 25 and 26 of this paper book, we are clear in our mind that there is no miscarriage of justice, error of jurisdiction, illegality or any other vitiating factors on Ext.P7 order, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. It stands. 4.In fact, we had minuted the aforesaid view even at the stage of admission on 24.10.2011 and we had issued notice on this Original Petition only because the petitioner said earlier that he is prepared to comply with condition No.2 and that what he wants is lenience by lifting attachment to enable him to mortgage or otherwise raise funds to satisfy condition No.2 in Ext.P4. We had also recorded in the order dated 24.10.2011 the statement that the property under attachment belongs to the petitioner and his mother. 5.Having found that Ext.P7 order stands, all that is required now is to note the statement on behalf of the petitioner that the property which earlier belonged to his father gets devolved on OPFC.3388/11 4 the petitioner, his siblings and their mother. The petitioner says that if attachment over the property is lifted, he will be able to raise funds by mortgaging or pledging it appropriately. We are not advised to express anything finally on that plea. We are yet to see any partition deed between the petitioner, his siblings and their mother. We also do not think it appropriate to go into the rights interse those persons in this proceedings. Even the mother is not before us. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to move the court below for any order as may be found permissible in law on the facts and circumstances of this case. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge kkb.14/12.