AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J
Under challenge in this Original Petition is Ext. P8 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla on cheque application No. 56/2011-2012 in O.P. No. 559 of 2004. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the cheque application filed by the respondent for withdrawing Rs. 2,05,500/- from the amount deposited by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the court below, the petitioner has preferred this Original Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were three cases including O.P. No. 559 of 2004, pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla between the parties. All these three cases have been settled mutually by way of compromise evidenced by Ext. P1. That compromise arrived at between the parties has been recorded by the court below as per Ext. P2 order dated 23-09-2008 in M.C. No. 220 of 2004. Clause 5 of Ext. P1 compromise shows that all the cases and other disputes between the parties would remain settled subject to the terms and conditions agreed between the parties in this compromise. Clause 2 of Ext. P1 shows that the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent and the child and, out of which, Rs. 1 lakh would be paid before 22-10-2008 to the respondent and then both the parties should file a joint petition for divorce before the court. The said amount of Rs. 1 lakh had been deposited and Ext. P3 is the receipt showing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the amount so agreed had been deposited, the respondent did not join the petitioner for filing a joint petition for divorce as agreed in Ext. P1. He further submits that as agreed in clause 2 of Ext. P1, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 2,05,500/- in the court below on 20-12-2010. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the cheque application for withdrawing Rs. 2,05,500/-.
The dispute raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that he has taken all the steps for complying with the compromise entered between the parties. He has deposited the amount as agreed between the parties. But the respondent, who ought to have signed the joint petition for divorce after the petitioner deposited Rs. 1 lakh as agreed in clause 2 of Ext. P1, has not come forward for signing the joint petition prepared for divorce. In such a circumstance, without performing her part as per the compromise, she cannot be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any serious objection with regard to the necessity of setting aside Ext. P8 order with a direction to consider afresh the matter in the light of the terms of Ext. P1 compromise.
The court below in Ext. P8 observed that Ext. P1 compromise does not specifically mention anything about O.P. No. 559 of 2004. That observation cannot stand in the light of clause 5 of Ext. P1. Clause 5 clearly shows that all the cases between the parties would remain settled. The sweeping expression ''all the cases'' used in that clause takes in O.P. No. 559 of 2004 as well. So, that case also remains settled.
Therefore, Ext. P8 is set aside. The court below is directed to re-consider the cheque application No. 56/2011-2012 in O.P. No. 559 of 2004 in the light of the terms agreed between the parties in Ext. P1 compromise and in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment. This Original Petition is allowed as above. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thiruvalla on 29-10-2012.