Point of Law: When a compromise decree is passed in a suit to which minor is a party, it is mandate of Order XXXII Rule 7 of Code to obtain leave of court before disposal of suit.

JUDGMENT

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The order dated 03.11.2022 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.P.No.780 of 2021 is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. I.A.No.5 of 2022 was filed by the appellants, who are the wife and children of the 1st respondent, seeking review of the judgment dated 01.07.2022 in O.P.No.780 of 2021. As per the said judgment, O.P.No.780 of 2021 was allowed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed I.A.No.5 of 2022.

3. This appeal was admitted on 21.11.2022. The respondents entered appearance through their learned counsel.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. O.P.No.780 of 2021 was filed by the appellants seeking a decree setting aside gift deed No.914 of 2019 of Sub Registry Office, Pattom. Apart from the said case, several other litigations between the parties are pending. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.223 of 2018 for a decree of dissolution of marriage. He also filed O.P.No.224 of 2018 for declaring him the guardian of the children and to get their permanent custody. The appellants fled M.C.No.160 of 2018 claiming maintenance. Two more cases, namely, O.P.No.753 of 2021 and O.P.No.3004 of 2021 between them are also pending consideration of the Family Court. It was in such circumstances, a compromise, Ext.P1 was entered into and signed by the 1st appellant and the respondents, which was filed before the Family Court. The Family Court as per the judgment dated 01.07.2022 recorded that compromise and allowed O.P.No.780 of 2021. The judgment reads:-

“Petition for setting aside the gift deed No.914 of 2019 and for temporary injunction.

Advanced. Both parties and their counsels are present. Matter along with all other connected matters are settled in the counselling. Compromise filed. OP allowed in terms of compromise. The compromise shall form part of the decree. The attachment is lifted. Communicate the order.”

6. The appellants have filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.P.No.780 of 2021 seeking to review the said judgment dated 01.07.2022. The contentions of the appellants were that the 1st appellant was made to believe that by such a compromise, O.P.No.780 of 2021 would alone be disposed of; whereas in the said judgment rendered on recording the settlement agreement, it was stated that all litigations between appellants and the respondents pending before the Family Court Thiruvananthapuram and also this Court have been settled. Although the Family Court was apprised of the error thereby occurred, the review petition was dismissed.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that a reading of Annexure A1, the settlement agreement itself it is evident that the purport of the same was to settle the subject matter of O.P.No.780 of 2021 and no other case. Now, the respondents would interpret the compromise and also the judgment in O.P.No.780 of 2021 to mean that all cases pending between the parties are settled as per the terms of Annexure A1. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would further submit that Annexure A1 as well as Annexure A2 judgment dated 01.07.2022 are vitiated by fraud, and therefore the same could be challenged by filing an interlocutory application. According to the learned counsel, a separate suit for challenging Annexure A2 judgment is barred under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the remedy is to approach the same court by filing an application. In this regard the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Ajanta LPP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. & another [(2002) 5 SCC 449] and R.Janakiammal v. S.K.Kumaraswamy (deceased) (through LRs. and others [(2021) 9 SCC 114].

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that th