A. Hariprasad, J.

Review petitioner is the first respondent in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the above original petition. In the original petition, a direction was sought to the Judge, Family Court, Thiruvalla to draw up a decree in O.P(HMA) No.909/2008 in accordance with the judgment and a further direction to dispose of E.P.No.6 of 2013 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. This Court after hearing both sides disposed of the original petition directing the Court concerned to draft a decree in terms of Ext.P2 compromise executed and presented before the Court by the parties to the proceedings, leaving any challenge against the executability of the decree open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

3. Grievances of the review petitioner are mainly the following: The stipulation in Order XX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "CPC") that a decree shall agree with the judgment has been violated and so much so the direction to draft a decree in terms of the compromise is an error apparent on the face of the judgment. Secondly, the original petitioner should have sought a review of the judgment before the trial court. He should not have been permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Yet another contention is that there is no requirement of a separate decree, apart from the decreetal portion of the order, as per the terms of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short, "the Act") and Rules thereunder as the Court is not expected to follow the procedure prescribed in the CPC meticulously.

4. Heard Sri. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri. K. Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

5. In the light of the pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel, we think it apposite to frame the following points for determination.

I. Whether the Family Courts are bound to draft decrees in suits or proceedings falling under Section 7(1) Explanation to the Act?

II. If the parties compromise a matter pending before a Family Court, is it not bound to record the compromise/agreement and to pass a decree in accordance with such compromise/agreement?

III. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity if this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to direct the Family Court to draft a decree in a suit or proceeding wherein the Court failed to do so? Is the remedy of a party to move for a review only?

POINT No. I

6. At the time of hearing, inputs were supplied to us indicating that there is no consistent practice followed by the Family Courts in the State in drafting decrees in suits or proceedings. Therefore, we issued a direction to the Registry of this Court to get a report from all the Family Courts functioning in the State as to whether they are drafting decrees in suits or proceedings enumerated in Section 7(1) Explanation to the Act in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. This Court also required the Director, Kerala Judicial Academy to furnish the views of the Academy on this matter.

7. Pursuant to the direction, the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) submitted a report attaching the views collected from all the Family Courts functioning in the State. Learned Judges of the Family Courts have reported that decrees are being drafted under Order XX CPC in suits or proceedings mentioned above.

8. Sri. A.M. Babu, Director, Kerala Judicial Academy also submitted a detailed report. Based on various provisions of the Act and other relevant statutes, it is stated that drafting a decree is imperative while disposing of a suit or proceeding falling within Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act. We place on record our deep appreciation for the research done by the learned Director.

9. Before proceeding further, we would refer to the relevant provisions in the CPC and the Act. Section 2(2) CPC defin