REJI BABY Vs. MRS. SUBI MARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole respondent in MC No.23/2017 of JFMC, Kalamassery, filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005("DV Act" for brevity).

(2.) The petitioner herein married the first respondent on 31/12/1990. The second respondent daughter was born in the matrimonial relationship. Matrimonial relationship got strained leading to the filing of Annexure-1 O.P. No.259/2015 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking divorce. The matter was settled in mediation, evidenced by Annexure-2 report of the mediator. As per the terms of settlement, parties agreed to file an application for divorce on mutual consent. Annexure -3 is the copy of O.P.No.1418/2016 filed seeking divorce on mutual consent. Annexure-4 is an agreement stated to be entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent settling all the claims and liabilities between the parties on 23/7/2016. Annexure-5 is a copy of an affidavit executed by the first respondent filed along with Annexure-3 divorce petition. Annexure-6 is the affidavit affirmed by the petitioner herein reiterating the settlement of all claims and liabilities. By Annexure 7 judgment and Annexure 8 decree, divorce was granted by the Family Court, Ernakulam.

(3.) According to the petitioner herein, in the light of Annexures 3 to 6 documents, all the claims pending between the parties were amicably and mutually settled and no claim survives. Respondents herein were also not entitled to claim any maintenance, since on adequately compensating the respondents, relationship was brought to an end. According to the petitioner herein, notwithstanding the mutual agreement entered into between the parties and the settlement of all monetary claims evidenced by the above documents, respondents 1 and 2 filed MC No.23/2017 before the Magistrate seeking monthly maintenance, monthly house rent expenses, past maintenance, compensation for harassment, compensation for abuses committed against her and litigation expenses. According to the petitioner herein, it was intended to harass the petitioner and was an abuse of the process of law. It was further contended that, the second respondent was aged 20 years and was not a child as contemplated under the DV Act. Consequently, she was not entitled for any maintenance. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice invoking section 482 Cr.PC.