ANOOP VIJAY Vs. ARUNIMA P.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the judgment debtor and is restrained from travelling abroad by an order of the Family Court in execution proceedings. He sought to wriggle out of the restraint order alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Court to issue the restraint order. Court directed withdrawal of the restraint order on condition that petitioner deposits or furnishes security for the amounts due under the consent decree. In an attempt to fly out of the country, petitioner challenges the order of the Family Court directing him to furnish security for the consent decree.

(2.) Petitioner married the respondent on 20.08.2008 and a child was born on 06.07.2009. Disputes arose and a divorce petition was filed by the respondent wife as O.P.No.251/2014 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. Claim for return of money and gold ornaments was initiated as O.P.No.345/2014 before the same court. Finally, a compromise agreement was signed between the parties as per which the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10,75,000/- and 58 sovereigns of gold apart from agreeing to hand over the gold kept in the Bank locker to the wife. Reciprocal obligations were also agreed to by the wife.

(3.) Even though it is alleged that the parties did not comply with the compromise agreement, a judgment was passed in divorce O.P.No.251/2014 on 18.01.2016 as stipulated in the compromise agreement, dissolving the marriage.