IMPORTANT POINT
No one can be allowed to resile from agreement reached before Family Court.

K.T. Sankaran, J. —The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. There were disputes between them. The respondent filed M.C. No.142 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalasserry against the revision petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act. She also filed M.C. No. 320 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thalasserry claiming enhancement of maintenance. The disputes between the parties, including the disputes involved in the aforesaid cases, were settled between the parties before Lok Adalath conducted at Thalasserry. As per the terms of the settlement, the revision petitioner had to execute a gift deed, in respect of 15 cents of land situated on the rear side of his house, in favour of the respondent on 30.09.2011. Thereafter, the parties had to file an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was also agreed that on giving evidence in joint petition, the revision petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent. It was also agreed that the respondent would withdraw M.CNos.1420 of 2009 and 320 of2011 referred to above.

2. According to the respondent, the revision petitioner did not handover the necessary documents for preparing the gift deed. She sent a notice dated 30.09.2011 to the revision petitioner requesting him to appear before the Office of the Sub Registrar, Thalasserry on 01.10.2011, with necessary documents. On 30.09.2011 the revision petitioner also sent a notice to the respondent stating that since the respondent committed wilful default in complying with the terms of the settlement, he was withdrawing from the settlement entered into between the parties.

3. Complaining that the revision petitioner failed to execute the gift deed, the respondent filed E.P.No.32 of 2011 before the Family Court, Thalasserry. The revision petitioner filed a counter in that execution petition stating that it was only due to the wilful default of the respondent that the gift deed could not be executed within the stipulated time and that he was all along ready to comply with the stipulations in the compromise agreement. The executing court rejected the contention put forward by the revision petitioner and directed him to execute the gift deed in respect of 15 cents of land to the respondent within ten days. The order passed by the executing court is under challenge in this Original Petition.

4. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties before the court below. However, Exts. A1 and A2 and B1 to B4 were marked. The court below found that the gift deed had to be drafted by the respondent herein and for that purpose it was necessary to peruse the documents by her. The revision petitioner did not make available the documents within time. It was also noticed by the court below that believing the words of the revision petitioner, the respondent had withdrawn the two MCs pending before the courts, in terms of the settlement agreement. It was also noticed that the respondent had produced the draft gift deed before court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a time limit was fixed in the settlement agreement and the executing court cannot extend the period. He referred to the decision in Chandran v. Musthafa, 2011 (3) KLT 245. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision of the Kerala High Court in Thomas Lob v. Thomas, 2003(3) KLT 936. taking the view that an award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be treated as a compromise decree passed by the Civil Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the award or extend the time agreed upon between the parties, was reversed by the Supreme Court in Thomas v. Thomas Job, 2005(3) KLT 1042 (SC). He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others, 2008(2) SCC 660. and Govindan Kutty Menon v. Shaji, 2011(4) KLT 857 (SC).

6. In Chandran v. Musthafa (supra), the parties filed a suit fo