Amicable settlements in divorce proceedings are upheld unless substantial evidence of fraud is presented; vague allegations are insufficient to reopen finalized cases.

ORDER

Annexure-8 complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (in short, ‘PWDV Act’) in M.C.No.34/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’) by the respondent in that case.

2. The facts of the case are summarised as follows:

The petitioner had married the second respondent on 15.07.2012. In the above marital relationship, a male child was born on 01.05.2013. However, pursuant to the disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent, they started living separately since 10.06.2013. While so, the petitioner filed O.P.(HMA)No.1034/2013 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the second respondent. O.P.No.1102/2015 was also filed before the same Family Court by the petitioner seeking the custody of the child. The second respondent, thereupon, filed M.C.No.321/2013 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, against the petitioner seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. On the basis of a complaint preferred by the second respondent, a crime was registered against the petitioner in connection with the commission of offences under Section s 498A , 420 & 377 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '). The final report filed in the aforesaid crime was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, as C.C.No.2081/2015 . The second respondent also filed a complaint before the Grama Nyalaya, Chadayamangalam, under the provisions of the PWDV Act, seeking various reliefs. The aforesaid complaint was numbered as M.C.No.1/2016. Pursuant to mediation and conciliation, all the disputes which arose between the petitioner and the second respondent were amicably settled. Accordingly, a compromise was signed by the petitioner and the second respondent, as per the terms of which the petitioner paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the second respondent and also deposited Rs.8,50,000/- in the name of his minor son. The above said deposit of Rs.8,50,000/- in the name of the minor son of the petitioner was intended to be utilised for meeting the expenses of the said child till he attains the age of majority. As per the terms of the agreement, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw the monthly interest of the aforesaid deposit made in the name of the minor son and to expend the same for meeting the expenses of the child. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise between the parties, the petitioner and the second respondent filed a joint petition before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, for divorce by mutual consent. Petitions were also filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, and the Gram Nyalaya, Chadayamangalam, for the withdrawal of the criminal case and the domestic violence case instituted by the second respondent before the aforesaid courts. In the criminal case against the petitioner, the second respondent and her parents gave evidence in tune with the compromise between the parties, and accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Magistrate, taking note of the fact that the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, pursuant to the compromise in the issue between the parties. Accordingly, all the pending litigations between the petitioner and the second respondent before the Family Court, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, and the Gram Nyalaya, Chadayamangalam, were disposed of by the respective Courts, taking note of the compromise agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent. After about three years from the final settlement of the aforesa