IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33969 of 2008(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 29/08 IN OP.1406/2004 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PONNAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PULIYASSERI HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O RAMASWAMY, KATTUPRAMBIL HOUSE, PUSHPAKARA ROAD, T.K.C. CROSS ROAD, VADUTHALA,KOCHI-28 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELSY, AGED 48 YEARS, PULIYASSERI HOUSE PADATHARA, PADIVATTOM, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PRINCY, D/O.PONNAN AGED 17 YEARS PULIYASSERI HOUSE PADATHARA, PADIVATTOM, PALARIVATTOM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT RESPECTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR (PALAKKAT) FOR R1 SRI.K.N.ABILASH FOR R1 SMT.LEELA.R. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33969 of 2008-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The writ petitioner, Shri Ponnan, married the first respondent herein. Subsequently, some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. A petition was filed by the wife for return of the gold ornaments and maintenance and the petitioner herein filed a petition for divorce against the wife. While the matter was pending before the Family Court, a compromise was arrived at. Ext.P1 is the copy of the compromise petition. (O.P.No.1051/2004 shown therein is a mistake for O.P.No.1406/2004.) Based on Ext.P1 compromise petition, Ext.P2 order was passed. One of the compromise in Ext.P1 is that a joint petition for divorce must be filed by both the parties and the petitioner herein has to execute a settlement deed after receipt of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The wife filed the execution petition for getting the settlement deed executed, after depositing an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The husband's objection is two fold: (i) that value of one third of the property given to him as per the compromise would come to Rs.5 lakhs as against Rs.4 lakhs; and (ii) that a joint petition for compromise WPC 33969/2008 -2- has not been filed by the wife. 2. The wife has filed a counter affidavit. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The objection regarding the amount to be paid to the husband for execution of the settlement deed, is not liable to be reopened at this stage, since it is a subject matter of compromise acted upon by the court and both parties and their counsel have signed also. The other objection is factually incorrect because the wife has filed a joint petition. When the matter was posted for appearance of the parties, it is the petitioner who failed to appear. Thus, no grounds are made out for granting any relief in favour of the petitioner. Even though he submitted that Ext.P4 objection was filed against the execution petition, it is pointed out that an objection was filed earlier and the same was dismissed by the court below on merits. The present objection is only to protract the proceedings. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/