Kerala High Court
Nhandadi Pavithran vs Praseetha C.V. on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942
OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 460/2014 OF FAMILY
COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER:
NHANDADI PAVITHRAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NHANDADI HOUSE, VANHERY DESOM,
THILLANKERY P.O., KANNUR - 670 702.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR
RESPONDENT:
PRASEETHA C.V., D/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VELLOTH HOUSE, KOTTAYAM MALABAR
VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 643.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12-02-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019
..2..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.
No.24 of 2019 in O.P. No.460 of 2014 on the file of
the Family Court, Thalassery. The above original
petition was filed to recover a sum of Rs.
1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only)
towards past maintenance payable to the wife. The
petitioner is the husband. In the execution
proceedings, the petitioner - judgment debtor raised
an objection. According to him, after the decree,
an agreement has been executed between the judgment
debtor and the decree holder and the decree holder
was permitted to reside along with the judgment
debtor and therefore, the decree is inexecutable.
2. The Execution Court overruled the objection
and passed the impugned order. Challenging this,
the original petition was filed before this Court.
OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019
..3..
3. The Execution Court cannot go beyond
the decree. If the parties have settled their
differences and executed agreement, satisfaction of
the decree has to be certified in the manner
indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. In the absence of any
certification of the satisfaction of the decree in a
manner laid down under the law, the judgment debtor
cannot object the execution of the decree pointing
out the settlement between the parties. The Apex
Court and this Court in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand
Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373], Padma Ben Banushali and
another v. Yogendra Rathore and others [(2006) 12
SCC 138], Lakshmi Narayanan v. S.S Pandian [(2000)
7 SCC 240], V.Ponnappan v. Vijayan [1991 (1) KLJ
207] and Padmanabha Pillai v. Viswambaran [AIR 1987
KERALA 98] held that any mode of satisfaction of the
decree will have to be certified in a manner
indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC.
4. In the absence of any certification of the
satisfaction of the decree as indicated under Order
OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019
..4..
XXI Rule 2 of CPC, it is not open for the judgment
debtor to object the execution of the decree stating
that subsequent to the decree, the parties have
settled the dispute.
we do not find any jurisdictional error
committed by the Execution Court, in overruling the
objection. The original petition fails,
accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
PR
OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.24 OF 2019 IN
O.P.NO.460 OF 2014 FILED BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY
THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED IN
E.P.NO.24 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.460 OF
2014 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY IN E.P.NO.24
OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.460 OF 2014 DATED
08/07/2019.
