IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 437 of 2010 -------------------------------- (M.C. 342/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA) .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- P.D.VARGHESE, AGED 56, S/O.LATE P.V.DANIEL, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- 1. HELEN VARGHESE, AGED 38, SRINIDHI, NALAMCHIRA P.O., MANNANTHALA, TRIVANDRUM FROM ROSE VILLA, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PANDALAM P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.M.C.No.437 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure-E, M.C.No.342 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, quashed. 2. M.C.No.342 of 2009 has been instituted by the wife of the petitioner herein for maintenance against the petitioner for herself. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 25-11-1985 at Holy Innocent Orthodox Church, Mezhuveli. The couple had two children. The elder son is aged 20 and younger son is aged 18. It is seen that there are several litigations between the parties, including W.P.(C) No.32851 of 2008 before this Court. The entire disputes and claims were settled between the parties and a compromise petition was filed in the writ Crl.M.C. No. 437/2010 2 petition. This Court by Anexure-C judgment recorded the compromise and closed the writ petition. It is stated that the matter was pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla and the parties entered into a compromise. Annexure-C judgment shows that the parties had agreed to settle the mater on certain terms. 3. The present complaint of the petitioner is that the M.C. now instituted by the wife is contrary to the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties and accepted by this Court and, therefore, it is not maintainable. 4. There is no reason as to why the petitioner could not bring the above facts before the Family Court. There is also no reason as to why the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and accepted by this Court, is not produced by the petitioner before the Family Court and seek appropriate reliefs. 5. Any way, there will be a direction to the Family Court that in case the petitioner challenges the maintainability of the M.C. on the ground of compromise Crl.M.C. No. 437/2010 3 entered into between the parties and accepted by this Court, that shall be considered as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of failing the petition. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.