IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 37 of 2005 AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 77/03 IN OS.75/2002 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM REVN. PETITIONERS: PLAINTIFFS/DECREE HOLDER ----------------------------------------- 1. ASHA, AGED 30 YEARS, KANJIRATHINMOOTTIL, KOTTAKKEDAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE. 2. JAYALEKSHMI (MINOR), AGED 5, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER THE 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------- MANJUNATH, MAYORAM VEEDU, UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL EAST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005 D -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th March, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners filed E.P.No.77 of 2003 in O.S.No.75 of 2002, on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The petitioners are the wife and daughter of the respondent. The case pending before the Family Court was referred to the Lok Adalath and the parties settled the dispute. The relevant portion of the award dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Lok Adalath reads as follows: “In full and final settlement of all claims in the suit, the first defendant today returned to the first plaintiff the fixed deposit certificate in her name for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty thousand only) and paid Rs.80,000/- (Rs.Eighty thousand) only and he also returned her 105 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also deposited Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty thousand only) in the name of minor 2nd plaintiff in Parippally branch of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., for a period of 15 years and the said amount is in full and final settlement of her maintenance and marriage expenses. The first plaintiff is allowed to take the interest of the said amount for the maintenance of the minor. The first plaintiff will not claim any further maintenance in future from the first defendant. The first plaintiff and the first defendant filed a joint petition for divorce today. Therefore all the rights and liabilities in between the parties stands closed.” On the same date, as per the order in O.P.(HMA)No.479 of 2002, the joint petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was recorded and divorce was granted. C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005 :: 2 :: 2. The Execution Petition was filed by the petitioners contending that the respondent had withdrawn the interest from the fixed deposit account and had appropriated the same unto himself. The date on which the interest was withdrawn was not stated in the Execution Petition. It is stated in the Execution Petition that in respect of another account, the cheque book and pass book remained with the respondent and they were not returned. The court below by the order impugned held that all the rights and liabilities between the parties were finally settled and satisfied and nothing remains to be done. It was held that the Execution Petition is not maintainable. In the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition it is stated that Rs.30,000/- was illegally drawn from the fixed deposit account by the respondent after passing the consent decree. This contention is denied by the respondent. A counter affidavit is filed in this Revision and a letter dated 27.1.2007, issued by the Branch Manager of the Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank, is produced as Ext.R1(b). Ext.R1(b) shows that interest for the period from 29.1.1998 to 29.5.2002 amounting to Rs.28,426/- was transferred to the account of the respondent at the request of the first petitioner. I am not relying on Ext.R1(b), since that document was not produced before the executing court and since no application is filed to receive the document as additional evidence. C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2005 :: 3 :: 3. The award was passed by the Lok Adalath on 13.9.2002. The petitioners did not adduce any evidence before the court below to substantiate that amounts were withdrawn by the respondent after passing of the award by the Lok Adalath thereby defeating the terms of the compromise. The remedy of the petitioners is not to file an Execution Petition because there is nothing to be executed in the decree. The court below was justified in dismissing the Execution Petition. No interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/