GEORGE THOMAS Vs. ALEYAMMA THOMAS ALIAS AMMUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein was the respondent in O.P.No.831 of 2007 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That petition was filed by the respondent herein, his wife, claiming paternal share and value of ornaments. That petition was dismissed for default. The claimant wife/respondent herein filed a petition for restoration. That petition came up for hearing on 06.02.2010. The record of the court shows that on that day, the parties settled all their outstanding disputes. The terms of settlement are enumerated as items 1 to 6 in the records (order sheet) of the court. Those terms are accepted by both sides. Parties and counsel have signed such statement. Accepting the compromise, the court proceeded to decree the O.P in terms of the compromise. We do take note of the inadequacy in the proceedings that the compromise was noted on the application for restoration. Long later in October, 2010, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2811 of 2010 to review the order dated 06.02.2010. According to the petitioner, he was actually present in Court on that date. His counsel was also present. But according to him, he had not settled the disputes. He had not signed Annexure-A2. His lawyer had admittedly signed Annexure-A2, ie. terms of settlement 1 to 6. He is also shown to have signed Annexure-A2. But according to him, he had not signed Annexure-A2. It is, in this context that an application for review was filed.

(2.) THE application was opposed. Counter statement was filed. THE Family Court considered the matter and by the impugned detailed order came to the conclusion that there is no bona fides in the request of review. THE petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.1,500/-.

(3.) IN any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that there is any merit in the challenge raised against the impugned order. It appears to be clear as day light that the appellant had agreed to the 6 terms stipulated in Annexure-A2. He had signed it. His counsel had countersigned it. He now wants to avoid the inconvenience of those stipulations and that is why the prayer for review has been made. There is no piece of conduct consistent with the innocence of the appellant, which could even remotely suggest that he had not consciously agreed to the 6 stipulations in Annexure-A2. A reading of the terms stipulated must also convey the fairness of the arrangement of settlement. It cannot also be lost sight of that the terms were recorded and the parties and counsel had signed on the order sheet maintained by the court in the immediate presence of the Presiding Officer.