VISHAL G. NAIR Vs. SREEDEVI P.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the respondents in OP No. 1054/2016 of the Family court, Pathanamthitta filed by the respondent/wife herein, claiming return of gold ornaments and patrimony. The parties are referred to hereinafter as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status before this court.

(2.) The first petitioner herein had married the respondent on 8/9/2013. Matrimonial relationship became strained in the course of time, leading to the filing of O.P. No. 1054/2016 by the wife before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Petitioners herein appeared before the court below and filed their objections. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the respondent and the 4th petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent.

(3.) According to the petitioners, on 1-4-2019, when the case stood posted for trial, the learned Family Court Judge made a suggestion for settlement of disputes and directed both the lawyers to interact and to try to arrive at an amicable settlement. Both sides agreed to make earnest efforts for amicable settlement of the dispute. When the case was taken up at the regular hearing, it was informed that the case will be called in the chamber of the learned Judge. Accordingly, both sides with their respective lawyers appeared in the chamber of the judge. The Judge advised that it would be better if the matter is settled and otherwise the proceedings would get delayed. The parties against whom the case is decided would take up the matter in appeal and the parties would have to spent a huge amount for the prolonged litigation. It is alleged that, the learned Judge thereafter stated that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners herein and showed a photograph which was marked in the Chief examination affidavit as Ext. A9 series. The learned judge stated that there is a document evidencing purchase of gold ornaments and therefore it is better that the case is settled. According to the petitioners, the learned Judge made statement regarding the documents produced by the respondent, as if they were legally acceptable evidence and that would prove the case of the respondent. Consequently, petitioners were constrained to make a suggestion to give a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute. The lawyer appearing for the respondent made a demand for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The learned Judge required the second petitioner to enhance the offer to a considerable extent. After discussion, the case was adjourned to another date to carry forward the talks and to reach a settlement. On 26/4/2019, it was informed by the petitioners that the dispute was settled for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. At that point of time, respondent's lawyer made a submission that respondent requires an amount of Rs. 50,000/- more for settling the dispute. Since this was more than the agreed amount, petitioners were not agreeable. Thereafter, learned judge suggested that the petitioners pay a further amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Petitioners' lawyer submitted that it is not a matter of payment of Rs. 25,000/- and even if the demand was for payment of one rupee over and above the amount mutually agreed upon, it was unfair, improper and unjustifiable. Learned Judge thereupon allegedly stated that 1st petitioner will be the loser if the matter is not settled and that the first petitioner would be sent to jail.