Kerala High Court
Y vs Fathima Re Spondent/ on 22 March, 2021
rN TEE HTGE CO{'RT OF KERAI.A AT ERNAKUI,AM
PRESENT
TEE EONOURABLE MR. JttsrrcE A.MIJEAI.{ED tdttsrAelrE
&
TEE EONOURABLE MR. dTUSTTCE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATE
IIoNDAY, TEE 22ND DAY OF !{ARCE 2O2L / 1ST CEATTERA,, 1943
Mat.Appea]..No. 1136 OF 2016
AGAINST TEE ORDER/i'I'DGMENT IN OP LL58/20L4 DATED L4-07-
2OL6 OF FAMTLY COI'RT,TERTSSIIR
APPELI.AIflT:
MU.'EEB RAEI{AT{ @ R.M MU.'EEB, AGED 34 YEJARS,
S /O . M'EAMI{ADAI"T, RJAYAINRJAI(KAR \ZEETTIL,
P . O . Kt IIDAITIYOOR, CEEIFtwA, KIZ.EAI(KtUMptJRjAlt.
BY ADV. SRT .VARGEESE C . KURIAI(OSE
RESPONDENT:
FI|IETMA, D lO .PAI{IKKL\TEETTIL KCIRT'PPATE ABDT,I
AZEE.Z, CEETr(,\|A, KUNDAIJTYUR. p.O., ENejaI{Drn R
VILLAGE,CEAVAICKAD TALI K. prN_690 516.
Rl BY ADV. SRI . DAIJLY ASOKEN
Rl BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ASOKAI{
Rl BY ADV. SERr . T . A. GOKT'L
TEIS I{ATRIMONIAI, APPEAL EAVING BEEN FINAI.LY BEARD ON
22 ' 03 '2o2L, TEE coIrRT oN TEE SAME DAY DELTVERED TEE
FOLTO9TING:
Mat.Appeal . No.1_136 OF 201,6
.2. .
J UDGMENT
oated thi s the 22nd day of uarch 202L
q.nuhamed uustaque. J
rhisappeal was fired by the former husband of
the respondent challengjng the decree for return of
gol d ornaments . rhe parti es pend-ing
, the ori gi na1
petition, resolved the dispute. Rlong with r.A.
No.1 0f 202L a compromise petition was filed. As
per the aEreemeRt, the parti es effected dr..vorce i n
the form of Mubaraat. rhe appel I ant al so paj d
Rs.1l_,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of
her claim of gold ornaments, past and future
maintenance, drrears of maintenance. rhe respondent
al so acknowl edged the recei pt of the same .
rn
addition to the above, t|'e appell,ant arss pai.d a surn
of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent towards the past
and future maintenance and arrears of maintenance of
mi nor.
rn the light of the settlement as above, this
appea'l i s di sposed of record.ing the compromi se.
Mat.Appeal .No.1136 oF 2016
, the i mpugned order is set aside. The
Acco rd'i ng1 y
appeal is disposed of in the light of compromise.
rhe compromi se agreement will form part of the
j udgment.
Al I pend-ing i nterr ocutory appr i,cati ons , i f Efly,
are closed.
sd/-
A. MUHAI|ED MUST.AQUE,
JUDGE
sd/_
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
PR
\ty
//
/e( u /t k/
ATERNAKULAM
Mat Appeal No. I 13 612016
Y
Mujeeb Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
Fathima Re spondent/Respondent
MPR FILED UNDER ORDER
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908. BY THE APPELLANT AND
ENT IN TFIE ABOVE
(€ c r.lf-f o-r
rli \ q\\ \J. /
'' 't'
l{tano
s*-.--*r
:f :F ** :F rl€ rl. ** rl€ * :|< :|< r& * rl. {. rl€ * :f * *
:16 rl. :f * * * :t< * :f * {< * rl€ rl. * >t rt< rl. rF rlc rF rf rF rt( * * * * * * * * rt( * rt€ rl€ ** *
VARGFmSE. C. KULTAKO SE- (Kt 23 8 I | 987)
COI-JNSEL FOR TT{E APPEALLANT
ASOKAN T.K. (]'HERLLT) (A-1146)
I
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HlqH.couRT OF KERALA.
W
IA 12021
Mat Appeal 1 136 / 2016
Mujeeb, Aged 41,
S/o Muhammadali, Rayammarakkar House, Petitioner/
Chettuva East, KundaliYur P.O, Appellant
Engandiyur Village, Thrissur District.
Fathima, aged 35,
D/o Abdul Aziz, Panikkaveetil Kuruppath RespondenU
House, Chettuva P.O, Engandiyur Village, Respondent
Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur Dt'
l, Fathima, aged 35, D/o Abdul Aziz, Panikkaveetil Kuruppath
House, chettuva p.o, E-ngandiyur Village, chavakkad raluk, Thrissur
Dt
do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
am the respondent in the above petition. The petitionel
1.1
was my husband. lam the petitioner in O.P 115812014 in the file of
Family bourt, Thrissur. The petitioner has filed the above appeal against
the decree in that case.
2. Now the entire ciisPute between me and Petitioner is
amicably settled. We have executed an Mubara'at agreement dissolving
our marriage.
3. As per the terms in the agreement I have received a sum of
O Rs. 16,50,000/- (bixteen lakhs fifty thousand) as full and final settlement
of claim of gold ornaments, past and future maintenance, arrears of
maintenance, reasonable antl fair provision and maintenance,
maintenance for the iddat period and claim of mahar and past and future
maintenance and arrears of the minor son'
4. Hence we have fik-'d thfs compromise in the appeal. There
was no coercion or undue influence in reaching the settlement.
5. Therefore, it is highly necessary in the interest of justice
that the above comPromise may be accepted and appeal may be allowed
as prayed for.
Deponent Dated this I daY of March, 2021
)otet$;-:r'v elf irnred aild st3ned b(:ior;-: :'ne
Fal\^1rvre irt lrrv o/f icc at Ayy.lntlrtte on this the
... #...u,v a t:L&ai!|... zo&..[..... ov
thrf (.reponeilt *D it krlcrvit .'ro nr€.
.IU-y' .,,
'\7,*,,uafl'
'fto'*y''"-'fr "ltL{"
_&
BEF RE THE HON'BLE
EEM5UTLAM
t
r A | 12021
Mat Appeal 1 136 / 2016
Mujeeb, Aged 41,
Petitioner/
S/o Muhammadali, Rayammarakkar House
Appellant
Chettuva East, KundaliYur P'O,
Engandiyur Village, Thrissur District' )
Fathima, aged 35,
RespondenU
D/o Abdu I Aziz, Panikkaveetil Kuruppath
House, Chettuva P'O, Engandiyur Village'
Respondent t( f ""t
'Id.,
Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur Dt'
OMP E
30 THE ILP
o E
l.TheaboveMatAppealisfiledagainstthe'Jy.dgment3ld
decree passed by the Family iourt, Thrissur in o'P
115812014' The
appellant was the
appellant was the respondenf in the lpwer court. The
case in the
husband of the l"""pond"nt. The respondent filed the above
Court as per the
lower Court claiming return of ornaments' The lower
appellant to return 36
Judgment and decrei dated 14-7.-2016 directed the
Aggrieved
sovereigns of goro ornaments or its value to the respondent'
was filed'
by the JriO juOdment and decree, the above Mat Appeal
2.TherespondenthadalsofiledM'c368|2014inthelower
and for
Court against the appellant claiminE maintenance for herself Court
minor son Aamir Muhammed, ncrw aled 7. In that case
the lower
per
o passed an order directing the appellJnt to p?y a sum 9l R". 4,000/-
had
month to the respondentlnd Rs.'2,500/- to the minor' The appellant
filed G.o P 50/2015 in the lower cpurt claiming custody of the
minor
minor on all
Aamir Muhammed. The lower Court allowed interaction with
first saturdays between 2-5 p.m at Family court premises. The lower
court disposed all the cases by the common judgment dated 14-7-2016'
3. while the above appeal is pending, entire disputes
between the and respondent was amicable settled in the
"pp"tt"nt
presence of tl're mediators. The appellant and respondent mutually
dissolved their marriage by executing a Mubara'at agreement in
the
presence of witnesses. As per the terms of the settlement, the appellant
paid a sum of Rs. 1 1 ,50,000/- (Eleven lakhs fifty thousand) to the
respondent towards the full and iinal settlement of her claim of
gold
ornaments, past and future maintenance, arrearS Of maintenance'
reasonable and fair provision and maintenance, maintenance for the
iddat period and claim of mahar. The appellant had also paid a sum of
Rs. 5,b0,000/- (Five lakhs) to tire respondent as a lump sum towards the
full and final setilement of the past and future maintenance and arrears of
maintenance of minor.
$$ftrtr? %
4. The respondent is fully satisfied with the above amount
towards their entire claim against the appellant. Respondent understood
the
that the above sum is reasonable considering the financial status of
appellant and her status and their future requirements. The respondent
has no further claim against the appellant'
5. In view of the above settlement, the appellant and
decree'
respondent hereby agree to record settlement of the impugned
lt
Hence the impugned decree may be set aside in view of the settlement.
is highly n".""r"rry interest of justice that the impugned decree TI f" O
!
set alide in view of tfre above compromise. lt is also highly necessary
tor
the bright future of the Parties.
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to record the above compromise and set aside the impugned
decree in o. p 115gt2014 dated 14-7-2016 of Family court, Thrissur by
allowing the above Mat APPeal.
d
Dated this the 3 day of March, 2021
a
Appellant N\ 'lf;EEB
Counsel for the aPPellant
Respondent ):'ct{ hi n^q
Counsel for the resPondent
All facts stated above are true and correct to the best of our knowledge,
information and belief.
Appellant PutEfl fu
o Respondent l4{)'irna fW
%
ry/*.r,
,1"*
6pPn[*"[.
d^t"l f.,r ttne
