SAJEENA Vs. HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A compromise decree passed on 20.1.2017 by the Family Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.No.683/2014 was sought to be reviewed by the appellant/wife before the court below. I.A.No.3078/2017 filed for reviewing the decree, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C., was delayed by 256 days. Therefore I.A.No.3079/2017 was also filed seeking condonation of delay. Both the petitions were opposed by the 1st respondent/husband and others. The Family Court, on accepting their objections, dismissed both petitions through the impugned order, dated 3.8.2018. That common order is under challenge in this appeal before us.

(2.) Appellant is the wife of 1st respondent. Other respondents are his parents and brother. The O.P. 683/2014 was filed by the appellant seeking to recover gold ornaments, patrimony etc. During pendency of the O.P. she left for Oman. Since she was not in a position to prosecute the litigation, she executed a power of attorney on 20.12.2016, empowering her mother to prosecute and conduct the case on her behalf. While she was abroad, a compromise was entered on her behalf between the power of attorney holder and the 1st respondent. The Family Court after recording the same, passed a decree in terms of the compromise. The terms of the compromise were also appended to the decree. These fundamental facts are not in dispute between parties.

(3.) Contention of the appellant/wife in the review petition was that, the terms incorporated in the compromise were adverse to her interest. Her mother 'Haiyath' is an uneducated woman and the respondents taking unfair advantage of her illiteracy played fraud and misrepresentation on her. The terms in the compromise were fashioned in such a manner as to make it appear that she settled and relinquished all the claims in the pending litigations before the Family court. The liability for payments allegedly undertaken by the first respondent in the compromise petition were not discharged as agreed. Further, the power of attorney holder did not consult her before finalising the terms of compromise or before affixing her signature to the petition. A major contention raised challenging the legality of the compromise was that, the 'talaq' pronounced by the 1st respondent on an earlier date was accepted by the power of attorney holder, without any authority. Essence of the contention is that, without the 'talaq' being communicated to the appellant in person and without the appellant personally transacting with the same, in any manner, a power of attorney holder has no authority to act on her behalf in a purely personal matter.