IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 OP (FC) NO. 719 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1152/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER:

ANISH THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O P.T.THOMAS, PANAVELIL MATTATHIL HOUSE, AMAYANNUR.P.O, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.P.J.JOSE SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI SMT.G.LAYA SRI.T.P.THOMAS RESPONDENT:

ELVI P. VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.P.C.VARGHESE,PULLIYIL THARAKAN VEEDU, CHANNANIKADU.P.O, PANACHICKADU VLLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE SMT.NICEY A. MENON SRI.P.A.REJIMON THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J Based on a compromise between the parties in O.P (Div.)

No.1152/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, the petitioner herein has agreed to deposit Rs.25 lakhs in fixed deposit in a bank with a provision to draw interest by the respondent herein for the welfare of the minor girl. It was further stipulated that the minor daughter on attaining majority, the amount can be withdrawn by her in accordance with her discretion.

2. The above settlement arrived in a divorce case. The compromise was entered on 14.6.2013. A decree of divorce was passed on 7.3.2014. There was some dispute with regard to the compliance of certain terms of the settlement. According to petitioner, this resulted in delay in making the deposit.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed E.P No.21/2016 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla to recover Rs.25 lakhs along with interest. An arrest warrant was issued. That was challenged before this Court in O.P(FC) No.629/2017.

4. This Court by an order dated 10.11.2017 granted an interim order staying the enforcement of warrant, on deposit of Rs.25 lakhs in a nationalised bank and production of deposit receipt before the Family Court.

5. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner herein deposited Rs.25 lakhs and produced receipt before the Family Court, Thiruvalla.

6. It was submitted before this Court by the petitioner's counsel that he has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the execution petition and that was not considered by the Family Court. This Court directed the Family Court, Thiruvalla to consider objection regarding the maintainability in accordance with law. The respondent was also allowed to withdraw the interest as per the compromise decree, if the execution petition is found maintainable.

7. The Family Court, Thiruvalla thereafter considered the maintainability of the execution petition and found that the execution petition is maintainable. The Family Court also found that the respondent/decree holder is also entitled to get interest from 15.9.2013 till 20.11.2017, the date on which the petitioner/judgment debtor deposited Rs.25 lakhs before the bank. This order is under challenge before this Court in this Original Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose raised only one point before us. According to him, the execution court committed a jurisdictional error in holding that the respondent/decree holder is entitled for the interest for the delayed payment. According to him, the execution court cannot go beyond the decree and award interest.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder Sri.Joseph George submits that the very purpose of agreement leading to compromise decree is to allow the minor child to withdraw the interest. The beneficiary, therefore, is entitled to claim interest. According to the learned counsel, the very purpose of settlement would be defeated, if no interest is allowed. It is submitted that the minor child was entitled to get maintenance for the delayed period