Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1040
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. Sudha, JJ
DR.ARAVIND KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
JAYALEKSHMI.R – Respondent
OP (FC) 59/2023
K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, ANUPAMA JOHNY, K.S.SUDHA, VISMAYA VENUGOPAL, SRI.SYAM J SAM J
The ruling underscored the court's support for mutually agreed settlements in divorce cases, highlighting their enforceability under family law.
Headnote:
Settlement - Family Law - Order XXIII Rule 3, Hindu Marriage Act Section 13B - The court emphasized the significance of mutual consent in divorce proceedings and the binding nature of compromise agreements between parties.
Fact of the Case:
The court examined a petition for recovery of financial claims and property attachment in a family dispute involving divorce proceedings. The wife sought a substantial amount for gold ornaments, vehicle value, loan repayment, and damages from the husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court facilitated reconciliation, leading the parties to settle on an agreed amount, thus modifying previous orders regarding property attachment and confirming the terms of their agreement within three months.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the financial claims made by the wife, the validity and execution of a compromise agreement, and the dissolution of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutual consent and a well-defined compromise reached between both parties are paramount in family law disputes, particularly in divorce cases.
Final Decision: The court modified the decree based on the compromise, allowing for a mutual divorce and clarifying financial obligations.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. This OPFC has been preferred against the common order dated 17.11.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2022 in O.P.No.329 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara whereby the respondent wife, Jayalekshmi had sought the recovery of Rs.1,25,51,520/- (Rupees One crore twenty five lakh fifty one thousand five hundred and twenty only) including the value of 102 sovereigns of gold ornaments fixed at Rs.38,51,520/- (Rupees Thirty eight lakh fifty one thousand five hundred and twenty only), Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakh only) towards the value of vehicle, Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakh only) towards the repayment of the loan borrowed from her and Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) towards compensation and damages allegedly due from the husband and his parents.
2. OP( HMA ) No.566 of 2023 has also been on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara for seeking dissolution of marriage at the instance of the husband which is pending consideration. The matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but there was no such headway.
3. This Court on 12.10.2023 passed the following order:
“The present petition is directed against the order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara whereby three properties have been attached on the petition seeking recovery of the gold ornaments, in the alternative of an amount of ₹ 1,25,00,000. Both the parties, who are the husband and wife, are present in court. We put to the parties certain conditions offered by the husband as well as the wife. To some extent they agreed, but there was some discord with regard to the amount. The wife submitted that an amount of ₹40,00,000/- was deposited through various bank transactions at the time of the marriage in the account of the husband, which has been disputed by the husband by saying that it was only to the extent of ₹15,00,000/-. We also apprise both the parties that the compromise cannot be only one-sided. Be that as it may. We would not like to comment further, as the parties have sought time to place on record the documents with advance copies to each other for verification as to whether the allegations recorded in our order are correct or not.”
4. We have called the parties and undertaken the reconciliation proceedings. Parties after due deliberation have agreed to part ways. Wife has given up the entire claim in the petition and confined it to an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty five lakh only). Husband has agreed to pay the same and some amount as maintenance to the child till the child attains majority. Both the parties in the presence of witnesses have filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code through I.A.No.1 of 2023 and the same is taken on record. Terms and conditions of the compromise reads as under:
“(i)The parties herein fix the amount payable to the 4th applicant including the amount claimed in OP(Others) No.329/2022now pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, the compensation claimed and the maintenance payable to the 4th applicant, at Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakh only) and 4th applicant accepts the same in full and final satisfaction of all her claims including the past as well as future maintenance. The 4th applicant hereby relinquish all her claims with respect to past, present and future maintenance due from the applicant No.1.
(ii) The parties pray that that the attachment order passed in I.A.No. 1/2023 and 2/2023 on the file of Family Court, Kottarakkara and later clarified by this Honourable Court, be modified by lifting the attachment over the B schedule property, enabling the applicants No.1 to 3 to transfer/encumber the same for the purpose arranging the amount to be paid to the 4th applicant.
(iii) The amount so agreed will be paid within a period of three months from the date of modification of the order of attachment as detailed in condition No.(ii) of this compromise petition.
