Kerala High Court
Aji Mathew vs Ambili Jose on 27 June, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4944 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2018 IN CRRP NO.13
OF 2017 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS, KASARAGOD ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2017 IN MC NO.215
OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/S:
AJI MATHEW
AGED 39 YEAS, S/O. MATHEW,RESIDING AT
MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,BALAL VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU
TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.PIN-671532.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
SMT.CISSY MATHEWS
SRI.K.A.LALAN
SRI.SARUN RAJAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AMBILI JOSE
D/O.LATE JOSE, RESIDING AT PERUMPALLIKKUNNEL
HOUSE,MALOM,MALOTH VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU
TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.PIN-671533.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.K.P.HARISH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4944 of 2018
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
The parties are husband and wife. The
matrimonial dispute has resulted in the first
respondent/wife filing an application under the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various
reliefs. Pending the proceedings, the first
respondent went abroad after being examined as a
witness. While the first respondent went abroad,
the parties reached a compromise and Annexure A1
settlement memo was filed in court. As the first
respondent was not in station, Annexure A1 was
signed on her behalf by her lawyer. The court
below refused to accept the compromise as the
settlement was not signed by the first respondent
herself and rejected the petition. Aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred a revision petition which
resulted in Annexure A2 order, remanding the
matter for fresh consideration by the trial
court, observing that the relationship between
Counsel and client is akin to a contractual
relationship between principal and agent and the
Counsel is perfectly within his authority to sign
a compromise on behalf of his client.
2. After remand, the first respondent
retracted from the compromise by submitting
Annexure A3. According to her, contrary to the
terms of compromise, the petitioner had insisted
on custody of the children and reliefs
pertaining to gold ornaments and compensation
were not included in the settlement. The
compromise not having taken place, the court
below proceeded to pass Annexure A5 order and the
same was confirmed by the Sessions Court as per
Annexure A6. The Crl.M.C is filed challenging
Annexures A5 and A6, primarily contending that
such orders could not have been passed in the
wake of the compromise entered between the
parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that, having entered into a compromise
through Counsel, the first respondent cannot be
permitted to wriggle out of it by stating
untenable reasons. Learned Counsel referred to
certain decisions in his effort to find support
for the contention.
4. I heard learned Counsel for the first
respondent also.
5. As far as the case at hand is concerned,
there is no need to decide whether a Counsel can
enter into a compromise on behalf of his client.
The first respondent has specifically stated in
Annexure A3 that the requisite terms were not
included in Annexure A1. As such, the court
cannot compel the first respondent to accept the
compromise or act upon the compromise on its own.
The Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF MEMO FILED BEFORE THE
MAGISTRATE COURT DETAILING THE TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT.
ANNEXURE A1(A): THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15-6-2016
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT -II,HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-
3-2017 IN CRL.R.P NO.6 OF 2016 OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE A3: THE TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN-PERSON BEFORE
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-II, HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A4; THE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO ANNEXURE -A3 PETITION
ANNEXURE A5: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 17-
7-2017 IN C.M.P.NO.3159/2016 IN
M.C.NO.215/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A6: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-
4-2018 IN CRL.RP.NO.13 OF2017 OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE A7: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
9-3-2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KASARAGOD.
