IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 50 of 2009(E) --------------------------- OP.191/2005 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER : APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- BAIJU, VILAYIL VEEDU, TC 13/1222, AVITTOM ROAD JUNCTION, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. RESHMI RAJENDRAN, D/O.RAJENDRAN, RAGASUDHA, ELANGANVILAKOM, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR FOR R1 SMT.P.A.RAZIA[MEDIATOR] THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.50 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against an order granting divorce under Section 25(3) and 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The petition was filed originally for declaration of nullity of marriage. The same was subsequently amended to include a prayer for dissolution of marriage. Before the court below the parties adduced their evidence and the court below turned down the prayer for declaration of nullity, but chose to grant the prayer for dissolution of marriage. The appeal is preferred against that order by the appellant/husband. 2. Parties were referred to the Mediator. The mediation did not succeed. After hearing the parties at the Bench, we had suggested that the counsel must make attempts to settle the disputes. Accordingly attempts continued and at long last, after we interacted with the parties in the Chamber, the parties came to a settlement and it was agreed that on payment of an amount of Rs.12,500/-, the appeal can be dismissed as not pressed. The Mat.Appeal No.50 of 2009 2 counsel for the respondents prayed for time to make the deposit. They submitted that they want further time to raise the amount. It is now submitted that with great difficulty they have raised the said amount of Rs.12,500/- and the same has already been deposited before the court as directed by this Court as the counsel who was appearing earlier for the appellant expressed reservation and reluctance to receive the amount on account of the subsequent attitude of the appellant. 3. We had accordingly directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.12,500/- which was agreed to be paid. 4. Accordingly the amount has been remitted in court. As directed by us, the learned counsel for the appellant who appeared earlier is present before Court today. Fresh vakalat has been filed by another counsel. 5. There is not a scintilla of doubt on the question that there was agreement and settlement between the parties which commenced with the efforts of the mediator and culminated in the submissions made to us in the Chamber that on payment of an amount of Rs.12,500/- the matter can be settled and appeal can be dismissed as not pressed. The counsel who has appeared today submits that the appellant is willing to settle the dispute and not press the appeal but he needs a higher amount as price Mat.Appeal No.50 of 2009 3 thereof. We are satisfied that this transparently amounts to abuse of the process of court. There is no dispute and there is no doubt that the appellant had agreed in our presence and in the presence of the counsel for both sides that the appeal can be dismissed as not pressed on payment of an amount of Rs.12,500/-. We are not satisfied that the parties can be permitted to retract from that settlement made which has already been acted upon by one of the parties. 6. The learned counsel, who appears for the appellant, now submits that the appellant wants to make other submissions also. Primary submission is that a higher amount must be received. 7. We are certain that the disapproval of this Court against attempt to abuse the process of the court must be clearly expressed. We are satisfied that as undertaken on 23.10.09, this appeal can now be dismissed as not pressed notwithstanding the subsequent valid attempts to retract from the settlement made on 23.10.09 which has already been acted upon also. 8. This Matrimonial Appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. The amount in deposit shall be released to the appellant. Mat.Appeal No.50 of 2009 4 I.A.No.3478 of 2009 We have already disposed of the Matrimonial Appeal by separate order today. 2. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-