IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22539 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.7/2009 IN OS.21/1998 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.RAMABHADRAN PILLAI (AGED 52 YEARS) VADAKKEKOLLOORAZHIKAM HOUSE, THAZHATHU CHERRY, KOOTTIKADA P.O., MAYYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.JOSEPH SRI.ANN MARY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. USHAKUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.SREE DEVI AMMA, K.M.NIVAS, MEVANAKKONAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, (FROM ANAPPARA HOUSE IN UROTHU POIKAYIL, EDAKKODU VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH THALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRIC). 2. KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O USHAKUMARI, K.M.NIVAS, MEVANAKKONAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.22539 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against Ext.P6 judgment and Ext.P7 decree passed by the Family Court, Kollam. The petitioner is the husband and the respondents herein are his wife and child. The respondents had approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal with a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C in 1986 and Ext.P2 order was passed by the Family Court directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/- and Rs.100/- per mensum respectively to respondents 1 and 2. While that order was in force, the respondents approached the Family Court, Kollam with O.S.No.21/98 claiming maintenance. Maintenance was claimed at a much higher rate than what was awarded under Ext.P2. When that suit for maintenance came up for consideration, parties were represented by their counsel and it was reported that the matter has been settled between the parties. A compromise petition W.P.C.No.22539/09 2 was filed. The learned Judge of the Family Court accepted the said compromise and passed Ext.P6 judgment dated 26/12/1998. Ext.P7 decree followed. Steps have now been taken for execution of the said decree. As per the said decree, the petitioner has to assign four cents of land belonging to him within a period of seven months from the date of the decree after discharging all other liabilities in respect of the property. The decree has not been satisfied. E.P.No.07/09 has been filed before the Family Court, Kollam for execution of the said compromise decree. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come to this court requesting this court to invoke its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside Exts.P6 and P7. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Exts.P6 and P7 are the result of fraud played on him by the respondents as also his own counsel. He had not intended to compromise the claim. He had not knowingly signed the joint statement and has not suffered the impugned judgment and decree. He was defrauded to sign the joint statement and to suffer the decree. This, in short, is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.C.No.22539/09 3 3. Under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. An appeal is thus proscribed under Section 19(2) of the Family Court's Act. According to the appellant, gross injustice results from the circumstance that his counsel as well as the respondents have colluded to get him to subscribe to a joint compromise petition and consequently suffered judgment and decree. 4. The contentions raised need and demand resolution of complicated questions of fact. We have no hesitation to hold that such complicated questions of fact cannot be decided and resolved in this writ petition. If the petitioner has any grievance that the impugned decree is not liable to be executed for the reason that it is void being the result of fraud, he must raise appropriate contentions before the appropriate fora and get that controversy resolved by adducing evidence in such proceedings with notice to the other side. We are certainly not persuaded to agree that such a complicated question of disputed fact can or ought to be resolved in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all relevant contentions before the Family Court in the execution W.P.C.No.22539/09 4 petition or institute appropriate proceedings for declaration that the compromise petition and all proceedings thereafter is vitiated. 5. At any rate, in the nature of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for resolution of that disputed facts. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.22539/09 5 W.P.C.No.22539/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009