IMPORTANT POINT
The words "by the other Family Court or ordinary civil court" in Section 18(3) of the Act is controlled and guided by the words "to which it is sent for execution". If it is not sent, undoubtedly the jurisdiction to execute the decree will continue to vest or remain with the Family Court that passed the decree or order. Such an interpretation arises on account of the overriding effect of the Family Courts Act in Section 20 and also due to the necessity of having certainty of laws.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner is the judgment debtor and is restrained from travelling abroad by an order of the Family Court in execution proceedings. He sought to wriggle out of the restraint order alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Court to issue the restraint order. Court directed withdrawal of the restraint order on condition that petitioner deposits or furnishes security for the amounts due under the consent decree. In an attempt to fly out of the country, petitioner challenges the order of the Family Court directing him to furnish security for the consent decree.

2. Petitioner married the respondent on 20.08.2008 and a child was born on 06.07.2009. Disputes arose and a divorce petition was filed by the respondent wife as O.P.No.251/2014 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. Claim for return of money and gold ornaments was initiated as O.P.No.345/2014 before the same court. Finally, a compromise agreement was signed between the parties as per which the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10,75,000/-and 58 sovereigns of gold apart from agreeing to hand over the gold kept in the Bank locker to the wife. Reciprocal obligations were also agreed to by the wife.

3. Even though it is alleged that the parties did not comply with the compromise agreement, a judgment was passed in divorce O.P.No.251/2014 on 18.01.2016 as stipulated in the compromise agreement, dissolving the marriage.

4. Since the monetary terms in the agreement were not complied with by the petitioner, the wife filed E.P.No.12/2016. However, the said execution petition was dismissed observing that the petitioner-judgment debtor was not residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

5. Thereafter, another execution petition as E.P.No.32/2017 was filed by the wife seeking to execute the terms of the compromise agreement, alleging that the petitioner-judgment debtor was taking steps to leave the country to defeat the terms of the agreement.

6. The Family Court, Muvattupuzha issued an arrest warrant in E.P.No.32/2017 in O.P.No.251/2014 against the petitioner. It is the claim of the original petitioner herein that, due to the arrest warrant, he could not go back to UAE and hence he filed a petition as E.A.No.07/2020 in E.P.No.32/2017, seeking an order to the Passport Officer, Kochi to permit the original petitioner to make international travel for obtaining a job. The said application was allowed by the Family Court by order dated 18.02.2020 on condition that the petitioner-judgment debtor furnishes security for the amount of Rs.10,75,000/-and for 58 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The aforesaid order is produced as Ext.P8 and is impugned in this original petition.

7. The main ground of challenge in the original petition is that once it was held that execution proceedings was not maintainable in the Family Court at Muvattupuzha, the said court could not have subsequently issued an arrest warrant in a second execution petition. It was also contended that when on the one hand the court stated that it had no jurisdiction, it could neither have issued an arrest warrant nor imposed any condition in the nature of directing furnishing of security for permitting the petitioner to travel abroad. Petitioner also referred to the judgment in O.P.(F.C) No.681/2019 of this Court, between the same parties herein, reported as Arunima v. Anoop [2020 (2) KLT 172], where the order of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the execution petition filed by the respondent, since the husband was residing outside the jurisdiction of the said court was upheld. He pointed out that the said decision is binding. It was also contended that, due to the financial position of the petitioner, he is unable to meet the commitments for payment of maintenance ordered in M.C.No.14/2013 or those agreed upon in the compromise agreement in O.P.No.251/2014. Petitioner who argued as a party in person further submitted that, when the court had