MUMTHAS Vs. NIZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 award as well as Ext.P5 order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage was solemnized on 31.05.1994 and a girl child was born to them in that wedlock. Since the respondent did not maintain the petitioner and the child, she filed OP.No.1054/2014 as Ext.P2 for dissolution of marriage under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act before the Family Court, Nedumangad. Even prior to that, there was a case filed as MC.No.85/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad under the provisions of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act and that was referred to Adalath and Ext.P1 award was passed whereby the respondent herein had agreed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.1,500/- to the child and the amount will be sent by money order. On that basis, MC.No.85/2011 was closed.

(3.) During the pendency of Ext.P2 proceedings, the matter has been again referred to Adalath and in the Adalath, matter was settled as per Ext.P3 whereby the respondent has agreed to pronounce talaq and also agreed to pay an amount of Rs. One lakh in full and final settlement of the amount payable under section 3 of the Muslim Women Protection on Divorce Act. On the basis of Ext.P3 award of the Adalath, the petition filed by the petitioner was closed. Since the respondent did not comply with the conditions, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application as IA.No.1322/2015 in OP.No.1054/2014 to reopen the case as the terms of settlement as per Ext.P3 award has not been complied with by reviewing the order closing of the original petition on the basis of the Adalath award. But that was dismissed by the court below by Ext.P5 order stating that the court has no power to review the award and if at all the parties are aggrieved, they will have to challenge the same by filing a writ petition relying on certain decisions of this Court on this aspect namely Moni Mathai & others v. The Federal Bank and another (2003 (1) KLT 406), Thomas P.T v. Thomas Job (2005 (3) KLT 1042) and Kil Kotagiri T and C Estates Co. Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1998 (2) KLT 271). Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed to set aside Ext.P3 award and Ext.P5 order.