V S SUBRAMANIAM ALIAS SENTHIL Vs. S PUNITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. B. Rajendran. Under this revision the order passed by the learned. I Additional Judge of the Family Court at Chennai in FCOP. No. 228 of 2006 dated 05. 11. 2007, a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is challenged. The issue is between husband and wife. On the representation made by both sides, the matter was referred to Mediation and it seems that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties. When the matter was again referred to the Court by Mediation Centre, on 05. 11. 2007 the revision petitioner / husband / petitioner in FCOP. No. 228 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Judge, Family Court at Chennai, filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording the compromise. But before the Court the respondent/wife had repudiated that she is not willing for compromise. Only under such circumstance, the learned I Additional Judge, Family Court at Chennai, had directed that the trial must go, and adjourned the matter for recording the cross-examination of P. W. 1.

(2.) THE learned Counsel Mr. B. Rajendran appearing for the revision petitioner relying on Rule 7 (3) of the Tamil Nadu (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2007, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23. 11. 2007 would contend that once the dispute between the parties are settled before the mediation, it is the duty of the Court to pass judgment in terms of the settlement and that in violation of the above said Rule, the Court below has passed the impugned order directing the parties to proceed with the trial. But a careful reading of Rule 7 (3) of the Tamil Nadu (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2007, will go to show that the Court shall pass a judgment in terms of the settlement and in accordance with Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, if the terms of settlement are lawful. The Rule 7 (3) of the Tamil Nadu (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2007, reads as follows:-

(3.) AT this juncture the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Rule 35 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996, and would contend that the said rule may also be extracted in this order. Rule 35 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 runs as follows:-