Allowed

Jaison Antony & Others v. Cicy Thomas

Kerala HC19 Jun 2012Mat.Appeal/47/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam disposed of a matrimonial appeal regarding a decree for maintenance and return of ornaments. The Court accepted an amended mediation settlement agreement where the appellant paid the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,80,000, with the respondent agreeing to maintain the minor child and waive future claims.

What did the court decide?

Matrimonial Appeal disposed of in terms of the amended mediation settlement agreement dated 12th April 2012.

Jaison Antony & Others Vs Cicy Thomas — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 47 of 2012 ( )

¶7

----------------------------OP.301/2010 of FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.:

¶9

JAISON ANTONY

¶10

S/O. N.I.ANTONY, AGED 39 YEARS,

¶11

NELLINATTU HOUSE KUTHUKUZHY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM,

¶12

ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶13

N.I.ANTONY F/O. JAISON ANTONY, NELLINATTU HOSUE KUTHUKUZHY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM,

¶14

ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶15

ELISSA ANTONY

¶16

W/O. ANTONY, NELLINATTU HOSUE KUTHUKUZHY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM

¶17

ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶19

SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) SRI.TITTO THOMAS

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN O.P.:

¶21

CICY THOMAS W/O. K.S.THOMAS, AGED 34 YEARS, MOOLETTU HOUSE THELLAKOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O. KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 685 001.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ (AMICUS CURIE) BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN BY ADV. SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN BY ADV. SRI.P.S.HARIHARAN

¶23

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶25

Mat. Appeal No.47 of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶29

O.P.No.301 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, was filed by the respondent for return of gold ornaments and money. Appellant No.1 is the husband of the respondent. Appellants 2 and 3 are the parents of appellant No.1. The Family Court, by the judgment dated 7^th December 2010, allowed the O.P. in part and the respondent/wife was granted a decree for realisation of a sum of 1,50,000/- with 7% interest from the date of suit and 10.25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of 1,40,000/- with 7% interest from the date of petition (17.3.2010) from the appellants. The respondent was also granted her costs of ` 2,000/-. The counter claim filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Family Court. The Mat. Appeal is filed by the

¶30

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶31

¶32

respondents in O.P.No.301 of 2010 challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court.

¶33

The parties were referred for mediation. A mediation settlement agreement dated 7^th March, 2012 was executed between appellant No.1 and the respondent and it was signed by them and the counsel appearing for the parties. It would appear that some disputes arose as to the terms of settlement and the matter was again sent for mediation. An amended memorandum of mediation settlement agreement dated 12.4.2012 was executed by appellant No.1 and the respondent and it was signed by them and the counsel appearing for the parties.

¶34

The terms of the mediation settlement agreement dated 7^th March, 2012 are the following :

¶35

“1. The appellant hereby pays a sum of ` 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand only) to the respondent in full and final settlement of all claims.

¶36

The respondent hereby receives a sum

¶37

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶38

¶39

of ` 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand only) in full and final settlement of all her and daughter Jayeme's present and future claims whatsoever in nature against the petitioner.

¶40

Respondent also agrees that the execution petition in M.C.No.280/2008 filed before the Ettumanoor Family Court will be withdrawn as not pressed and shall not proceed with the order therein.

¶41

Both parties agree that on the basis of this compromise the attachment of property in Sy.No.1222/9, Kothamangalam Village, Ernakulam District belonging to the appellant's family ordered in O.P.No.301/2010 at Family Court of Kottayam at Ettumanoor may be lifted.

¶42

The respondent herein and the minor daughter shall not raise any claims whatsoever in future against the appellant.

¶43

This compromise is executed by the respondent for herself and also on behalf of her minor daughter, Jayeme.

¶44

The appellant agrees that this compromise may be recorded and the above Matrimonial Appeal No.47/2012 may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶45

Both the parties agreed to suffer their respective costs.”

¶46

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶47

¶48

The amended mediation settlement agreement dated

¶49

12^th April, 2012 reads as follows :

¶50

“1. The appellant hereby paid a sum of ` 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand only) to the respondent in full and final settlement of all claims.

¶51

The respondent hereby received a sum of ` 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand only) in full and final settlement of all her claims whatsoever in nature against the petitioner. The respondent hereby undertakes to maintain the minor child.

¶52

Respondent also agrees that the execution petition in M.C.No.280/2008 filed before the Ettumanoor Family Court will be withdrawn as not pressed and shall not proceed with the order therein.

¶53

Both parties agree that on the basis of this compromise the attachment of property in Sy. No.1222/9, Kothamangalam Village, Ernakulam District belonging to the appellant's family ordered in O.P.No.301/2010 at Family Court of Kottayam at Ettumanoor may be lifted.

¶54

The respondent herein shall not raise any claims whatsoever in future against the

¶55

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶56

¶57

appellant.

¶58

The appellant agrees that this compromise may be recorded and the above Matrimonial Appeal No.47/2012 may be disposed of in terms of the above compromise.

¶59

Both the parties agreed to suffer their respective costs.”

¶60

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have complied with the terms of the mediation settlement agreement and therefore, the Mat. Appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement and full satisfaction of the decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.301 of 2010 may be recorded.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the mediation settlement agreement and the amended mediation settlement agreement are not in accordance with law and that the interests of the minor child are not protected therein. It is submitted that, therefore, the settlement agreements cannot be accepted and the appeal cannot be

¶62

¶63

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶64

disposed of in terms of the settlement agreements. To a query by the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent received a sum of 2,80,000/- as per the terms of the settlement. It is also admitted that the respondent and her counsel signed the compromise. No application has been filed by any of the parties contending that the terms of the settlement are contrary to law or the terms are vitiated by any of the vitiating circumstances. On a perusal of the terms of the settlement, we do not find anything illegal in the terms of the settlement. The respondent agreed that she will maintain the child. There is no illegality if the mother agrees to maintain her child. Nothing is stated in the amended memorandum of mediation settlement agreement about the waiver of any of the interests of the minor. The only condition in that context is the withdrawal of the Execution Petition in M.C.No.280 of 2008. That was made in consideration of the receipt of 2,80,000/-. There is nothing illegal in that respect. When a compromise is arrived at by the parties, the terms thereof need not be confined to the disputes

¶65

Mat. Appeal No.47/2012

¶66

¶67

involved in the particular case and the other disputes between the parties also can be settled.

¶68

For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and accept the amended mediation settlement agreement dated 12^th April, 2012. The Mat. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the amended memorandum of mediation settlement agreement dated 12^th April, 2012 and full satisfaction of the decree in O.P.No.301 of 2010, on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, is recorded.

¶69

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

¶70

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

csl

Jaison Antony & Others v. Cicy Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison Antony & Others v. Cicy Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cijo John Vs Anu Francis

Savitha Mukundan Menon Vs Premachandran P.Nair

Beji Vs State of Kerala

Hari Kumar Vs Sudha B

Babu Vs Brinta

Minimol.R.Mathew Vs Royson Mathew and Ors.