Daily Archives: August 13, 2012

TAMIL NADU POLICE – Circular Memorandum – Sub- Filing of cases registered under Dowry Death , Suicide in All Women P.S. – Instructions issued

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.08.2008

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI

M.P. No.1 of 2008 in Crl.O.P. No.10896 of 2008

ORDER

    Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 07.07.2008 to file compliance report, the Director General of Police in consultation with the Government, has issued the following Circular Memorandum:-

” Circular Memorandum

        Sub-    Filing of cases registered under Dowry  Death  / Suicide  in  All Women P.S. – Instructions issued. *****

    The Honorable High Court has issued the following observation in M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah.

     i) Except in cases of Dowry Death/suicide and offences of serious nature, the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations are to register F.I.R. only on approval of the Dowry Prohibition Officer concerned.

     ii) Social workers/mediators with experience may be nominated  and housed in the same premises of All Women Police Stations along with Dowry Prohibition Officers.

    iii) Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations.

    iv) If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding  the reasons recorded in writing.

    v) Arrest can be made after filing of the final report before the Magistrate concerned if there is non-cooperation and abscondance of accused persons, and after receipt of appropriate order (Non-Bailable Warrant).

    vi) Charge sheet must be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and in case of failure, extension of time shall be sought for from the jurisdiction Magistrate indicating the reasons for the failure.

    vii) No weapon including Lathis/physical force be used while handling cases at the All Women Police Stations.

    viii) Complainants/victims should be provided with adequate security/accommodation at Government Home and interest of the children must be taken care of.

    ix) Sridana properties/movables and immovable to be restored at the earliest to the victims/complainants and legal aid may be arranged for them through Legal Services Authority for immediate redressal of their grievances.

    2) The Commissioners of Police in cities and Superintendents of Police in Districts are requested to strictly follow the above instructions without any deviations.

    3) Receipt of the same should be acknowledged.

                      Sd/- (29.07.2008) For Director General of Police.”

    2. In respect of suggestion Nos.8 and 11 made by this Court; in the letter, dated 01.08.2008, of the Director General of Police, it has been stated as follows:-

    ” 2) With regard to the suggestion No.8, i.e., “A different Uniform other than the regular one may be recommended for these police officers” – the matter requires deliberations at length with Senior Police Officers in the State.  All the Senior Officers have been addressed to send their view on the subject.  After obtaining their views the matter will be discussed at State Headquarters and a report in this regard will be sent.

        3) With regard to suggestion No.11 – Director General of Police, Training has been addressed to initiate action to conduct Education programme for Police Officers on the objects of the legislation, judicial pronouncements and development of law.  Further progress report will be sent. “

    3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that, by virtue of the above Circular Memorandum, all the Commissioners of Police and the Superintendents of Police in the State have been instructed to scrupulously follow the suggestions, enumerated in the form of instructions, and therefore, in effect, the order of this Court has been complied with.

    4. The complaisant reaction to the suggestions made by this Court and issuance of the aforesaid Circular Memorandum with suitable instructions by the Director General of Police deserves deep appreciation of this Court. It must  also be pointed out that though several such suggestions and instructions were earlier made/issued in that perspective by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, there was no expected progress or outcome since, in course of time, the system started trailing with the same deviation and anomalies to reform/correct which the instructions were issued.  At least now, this Court is anxious to see that the directives are strictly followed perpetually with letter and spirit by the Investigating Officers of the Department in particular the officers posted at the All Women Police Stations.  

    5. Before parting, having regard to the directions issued to the Police Department, this Court deems it necessary to  outline certain aspects with regard to the role of the Judicial Magistrates and their effective functioning in deriving a positive outcome.

    As could be seen, though suitable directions have been given to the police, in particular to the Station House Officers, still there may be scope for misuse of power. The directions/instructions are only illustrative and not exhaustive. When the investigating officers seek for remand of the accused, the Magistrates must examine the necessity for the same and only where there are valid grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours, remand may be ordered. Violation of human rights and infringement of personal liberties must be viewed seriously.  Except in cases of grave nature viz., dowry death, murder, suicide, hurt, etc., in other matters like matrimonial disputes between spouses where it may not take much time for the police officer to interrogate/investigate, remand should not be ordered mechanically, for, remand of an accused by a Magistrate is not automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer and sufficient grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise the power of remand. To put it clear, a requisition of remand by the police must accompany the Case Diary, whereupon, the Magistrate must satisfy himself as to the adequacy and genuineness of the grounds necessitating judicial custody and while passing orders for remand or extension of remand, he must be alert to see that the liberty of the citizen is not violated by the police due to arbitrary exercise of power.  Though a detailed speaking order is not required for remand, application of judicial mind is absolutely necessary.

    Of course, it is provided in the Code that remand should not exceed 15 days at a time, but, it does not mean that in all cases, remand for 15 days should be ordered invariably. At the time of production of the accused before the Magistrates, they should examine the necessity and even at the time of initial remand, if it appears that remand is not necessary, bail application can be entertained provided the accused is prepared to furnish necessary surety or security as may be directed by the court.  Likewise, in cases where remand is required to be ordered, the period must be circumscribed depending upon the nature of the case, the materials produced by the prosecution and the actual requirement.  Though the law is manifestly clear, plain and patent, in many cases, it is witnessed that, on the mere request of the investigating officers, remand is ordered mechanically without application of mind and such illegal practice must be avoided.

    It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction.  Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant.  By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever. The husband and his family members may have difference of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answers.  The ultimate object of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.

    It is only before the jurisdiction Magistrate concerned, on conclusion of the investigation, final report is filed, whereupon, trial of the case is taken up and, in matters relating to serious offences, committal proceedings are initiated. It is the learned Magistrates who are empowered to order maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and award  compensation in appropriate cases. Pending investigation, for grant of instant relief viz., to award interim maintenance, interim compensation, entrust custody of minor, forward the victims to Govt. Homes, issue search warrant, order bailable or non-bailable warrant, restore sridana properties, send the injured to the Hospital, provide security, etc., to the complainant/wife/victim, the learned Magistrates can be approached and at such point of time, the Magistrates must see to it that orders are passed without any delay.  The preliminary job of an Investigating Officer including that of the Officers posted at the All Women Police Stations is only to collect the materials in respect of the dispute  they are investigating and place the same before the court/Magistrate.  For adjudicating any issue, the dispute must be forwarded only to the learned Magistrate or the Family court.  In this type of fragile matters, in the name of ‘petition enquiry’ or investigation after registration of  F.I.R., the police should not be allowed to conduct lengthy panchayats in police stations. If the dispute could not be resolved within a period of one week, a conclusion must be reached one way or the other and the matter must be forwarded to the learned Magistrate concerned.

    Therefore, while considering such cases, the learned Magistrates are directed to apply their judicial mind having regard to the propounded principles and procedure and the various aspects pointed out in the course of this order and also to monitor scrupulous adherence to the instructions referred to above by the police officers concerned.

    6. With the above observations and direction, the petition is closed.

    7. Registry is directed to immediately circulate copy of this order as well as the earlier order dated 07.07.2008 to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, and all the Judicial Magistrates for compliance.

JI

SOURCE

judis.nic.in

 

Don’t misuse Dowry Act, HC tells cops

Don’t misuse Dowry Act, HC tells cops

Inhuman Attitude Of Policewomen Closing Doors On Reconciliation: Judge

A Subramani | TNN

Chennai: “Marriages are made in heaven, but many marital ties are broken in All Women Police Stations (AWPS)… The Dowry Prohibition Act is the most misused enactment…These police stations in the state have almost become power centres where the women police officers, while dealing with delicate issues of family disputes between husband and wife, instead of making efforts for reunion or conciliation, focus to complicate and precipitate the issue so that ultimately they could derive the gain and benefit.”

This is what a single judge of the Madras High Court had to comment on the functioning of All Woman Police Stations, manned entirely by women.

Justice R Regupathi, making 11 suggestions (see box) for streamlining work culture in these stations, also observed that because of their “inhuman attitude” doors of conciliation are shut forever.

Justice Regupathi also stated that in order to retain jurisdiction over the case, these women personnel would include allegations attracting the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) “with ulterior motive.” He said aged parents, unmarried sisters and even children were ruthlessly harassed by the AWPS personnel who arrested these people with ulterior motive. “Arrests are invariably plotted at the weekends, particularly on Fridays, so that they cannot even apply for bail for the next two days,” he said.

The judge was making these observations on a criminal original petition filed by a person who was brutally assaulted by women police personnel at Chintadripet police station here.Justice Regupathi also cautioned that unnecessary arrests, where all the family members are dragged to police stations and subjected to “ignominy and disgrace,” would defeat the very purpose of the Dowry Prohibition Act, “rendering re-union a mirage.” He said police were expected to handle family disputes with “utmost tenderness, care and caution.”

In his 11-point charter of suggestions, the judge said station house officers of AWPS should register first information reports (FIRs) only after approval from duly appointed dowry prohibition officers, except in cases of dowry death/suicide. In matrimonial disputes, arrest of the aged, infirm, sick or minors should be avoided.

If any arrest was considered necessary for investigation, written sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police. The judge said chargesheet must be filed within 30 days from the date of registration of FIR and further extension of time could be obtained from the competent magistrate by indicating the reasons.

No weapon, including lathis orphysical force, should be used while dealing with such cases, Justice Regupathi said, adding that sridhana properties/movables or immovable assets must be restored at the earliest to the victim/complainant. “A different uniform, other than the regular one, may be recommended for these police officers,” the judge suggested. If necessary, victims/complainants should be provided with adequate security/accommodation at government home and the interests of the children too should be taken care of, he said.

Police department should arrange education programmes for these police officers through the Police Training College to teach the objects of the legislation, judicial pronouncements and development of the law, Justice Regupathi stipulated. He then directed the Director-General of Police to issue suitable orders to the officers of the All Women Police Stations in view of the latest order, and file a compliance report before the court within a month. He then adjourned the matter to August 4, for further proceedings.

————————————————————-

11 COMMANDMENTS FOR THE POLICE

Register FIR after approval from dowry prohibition officers

Make arrests only after sanction from SP

Avoid arrest of aged, sick and minors

Social workers must be present in AWPS

No weapon or physical force in AWPS

A different uniform for AWPS personnel

File chargesheet in 30 days Send victims to govt home, if necessary

Restore sridhana property to the victim

Education programme for AWPS personnel

Make arrests even after chargesheet in case of noncoop

————————————————————-

Source :
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOI/navigator.asp?
Daily=TOICH&login=default&AW=1215496053640

Husband and family arrested and dragged to courts for years !!!! Justice Regupathi on 498a

 
Justice Regupathi on 498a

““Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations.” Though arrest of those persons was not at all necessary, in several cases, such harassment was made simply to satisfy the complainant’s ego and anger……”

———— news item in detail —————

“Sufficient grounds must exist to remand an accused”

CHENNAI: Remand of an accused should not be ordered mechanically, for remand by a magistrate is not an automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer. Sufficient grounds must exist for the magistrate to exercise the power of remand, the Madras High Court has said. Passing further orders on a petition seeking to modify a bail order, Justice R.Regupathi said requisition for remand by the police should be accompanied by the case diary, whereupon the magistrate should satisfy himself as to the adequacy and genuineness of the grounds necessitating judicial custody. While passing orders of remand or extension of remand, the magistrate should be alert to see that the liberty of the citizen was not violated by the police due to arbitrary exercise of power. Though a detailed speaking order was not required for remand, application of judicial mind was absolutely necessary.

Mr.Justice Regupathi said the object behind enactment of section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act was to curb the dowry menace. “Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations.” Though arrest of those persons was not at all necessary, in several cases, such harassment was made simply to satisfy the complainant’s ego and anger. By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by magistrates; but if the magistrates themselves acceded to the bare request of police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects. The husband and his family members may have differences of opinion in the dispute, for which arrest and judicial remand were not the answers.

The government advocate (criminal side) submitted that the Judge’s earlier observation while passing orders on the petition had been circulated to all Commissioners and Superintendents of Police. Mr.Justice Regupathi, among other observations, had said that except in cases of dowry death/suicide and offences of serious nature, the SHOs of All Women Police Stations were to register FIR only on approval of the Dowry Prohibition Officers concerned; arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm and sick persons should not be made by the SHOs of AWPOs and if arrest was necessary during investigation, sanction should be obtained from the Superintendent of Police.

Romaiah (24) of Pudupet who was released on bail by the High Court in a dowry case had filed a petition alleging that he was beaten up by police when he went to the station to comply with the bail order. He prayed the court permit him to continue to report before the XIV MM Court, Egmore.

 

source

http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/13/stories/2008081359520400.htm

Even though some sort of panchayat or understanding or agreement is worked out and a mutual consent divorce is obtained, the magistrate court REFUSES to quash a 498(A) Case !!!

Even though some sort of panchayat or understanding or agreement is worked out and a mutual consent divorce is obtained, the magistrate court REFUSES to quash a 498(A) Case !!!

Husband and co have to run to high court for quash and there again the “wifeeeeeee” has to appear before the lordships and reiterate her view !!!

Sad but a true reminder to all those MEN who think, we can do panchayt…we can make a compromise with wife … pay some bucks and run for the next marriage !!!!

————- case from judis site ————-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 6-2-2009

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI

Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
and
Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009
1.B. Lakshmanan
2.R. Bose
3.Mrs.B. Rajeswari                            …. Petitioners in both the
                             revision and the petition
vs
State rep by
The Women Inspector of Police
W-16, All Women Police Station
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081                           … Respondent in both the
                           revision and the petitions
    Revision Petition is filed under Sec.397 and 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and discharge the petitioners/accused form the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005 and petition is filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to compound the offence.

        For petitioners    : Mr.K. Kannan
        For respondent    : Mr.R. Muniyapparaj
                      Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)        
 
COMMON ORDER
    The  petitioners  2  and  3  are  the parents of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners have filed the present revision to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and to discharge them from the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005. They also preferred the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009 to compound the offence. Inasmuch as both the matters are inter-connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

    2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the 1st petitioner, a case in C.C.No.5797of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC, was taken up for trial and P.Ws.1 to 3 including the defacto-complainant/wife were examined. In the meantime, based on the petition submitted by the petitioner/wife and the accused/husband, mutually consenting for divorce,  the Principal Family Court, Chennai granted decree of dissolution of marriage.  The defacto-complainant agreed to receive Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony with an undertaking to withdraw her case in CC No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate. Only under such circumstances, a petition under Sec.320 Cr.P.C was filed for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned, stating that it is a non-compoundable offence and jurisdiction is not vested with him,  dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against such order, the present revision has been filed along with a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009, filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C accompanied by the affidavits of the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner.
    3. Both the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner appeared before the Court today.

    4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

    5. With regard to the issue involved, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court  in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003 Crl.L.J 2028), wherein it is categorically held that while exercising powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, the High Court, in matrimonial matters can take into account the compromise entered into between the parties and permit them to compound the non-compoundable offence and also clarified that Sec.320 Cr.P.C would not be a bar in that regard.  
                                    
    6. In the case on hand, pending trial of the case before the learned Magistrate, proceedings were initiated before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage.  Both the parties, by mutual consent, dissolved their marriage. The defacto-complainant received Rs.30,000/- as  permanent alimony and  agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate.  Only under such circumstances, a petition has been filed, however, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

    7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.  Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. CC No.5797 of 2005 pending on the file of learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is quashed and both the criminal revision and criminal original petition are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.

                                       

sr

To

1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

2. The Women Inspector of Police
    W-16, All Women Police Station
    Tondiarpet, Chennai-600  081

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,  Chennai

Perils of Mediation in Family courts !!! V.S.Subramaniam @ Senthil vs S.Punitha on 29 January, 2008

Perils of Mediation in Family courts !!!

===========================================

After a matrimonial dispute & case, husband and wife attend mediation.

Once out of the mediation, wife REFUSES !!! to sign the mediation agreement at the court

Family court sends the case to trial

Husband appeals to the High court stating the facts and asking why a decree is not granted in accordance with what was agreed at mediation and why the case should go for trial

High court says “……..In this case also since the respondent, a party to the compromise, had repudiated the terms of the compromise before the Court on 05.11.2007, the Court below has rightly thought it fit not to record the same under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, has directed the parties to proceed with the trial…….”

So !!!!! IF wife does NOT sign up after mediation, ALL the mediation efforts are lost !!!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Madras High Court

V.S.Subramaniam @ Senthil vs S.Punitha on 29 January, 2008

DATE : 29.01.2008

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

CRP.(NPD).No.3772 of 2007

and

M.P.No.1 of 2007

V.S.Subramaniam @ Senthil .. Petitioner

Vs.

S.Punitha .. Respondent

Prayer:- This revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.11.2007 in F.C.O.P.No.228 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajendran, Advocate

For Respondent : Mrs.P.P.Bhuvaeswari, Advocate

ORDER

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:-

| “Rule 7(3):- When the dispute is referred for
| Mediation and the Mediator submits the terms of
| settlement entered into between the parties, which is
| reduced into writing in accordance with the Rules, 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.”

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC enumerates the rule to be followed in a compromise suit as follows:-

| “Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
| that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any
| lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed
| by the parties or where the defendant satisfies the
| plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the
| subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such
| agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded,
| and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far
| as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or
| not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or
| satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the
| suit. Provided that where it is alleged by one party
| and denied by the other that an adjustment or
| satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall
| decide the question; but no adjournment shall be
| granted for the purpose of deciding the question,
| unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks
| fit to grant such adjournment.
|
| Explanation:- An agreement or compromise which is
| void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
| (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within
| the meaning of this rule.
|
| HIGH COURT AMENDMENT (MADRAS): In the proviso to Rule
| 3, for the words ‘provided that’ that following shall
| be substituted, namely:
|
| “Provided that the subject matter of the agreement,
| compromise or satisfaction, in so far as it differs
| from the subject-matter of the suit, is within the
| territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court
| concerned.”

So under Order XXIII Rule 3 only if Court is satisfied that a lawful compromise or agreement has been entered into between the parties in Mediation, after recording the same, shall pass a decree in accordance with the said compromise or agreement.

It is seen from the notes of adjudication which took place on 5.11.2007 before the Court below that the respondent/wife was not amenable for recording the compromise, which had entered into between the parties before the Mediation. Only under such circumstance, the Court below thought it fit not to record the compromise, and directed the parties to proceed with the trial.

Under such circumstance, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned I Additional Judge, Family Court at Chennai, in FCOP.No.228 of 2006 on 5.11.2007, to warrant any interference from this Court.

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:-

| “When the parties arrive at a settlement before the
| counsellor relating to the dispute and any part
| thereof, such settlement, shall be reduced to writing
| and shall be signed, by the parties and counter-signed
| by the counsellor. The Court shall pronounce a decree
| or order in terms thereof unless the Court considers
| the terms of the settlement unconscionable or
| unlawful.”

In this case also since the respondent, a party to the compromise, had repudiated the terms of the compromise before the Court on 05.11.2007, the Court below has rightly thought it fit not to record the same under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, has directed the parties to proceed with the trial.

4.In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

ssv

To,

The I Additional Judge,

Family Court at Chennai.

source
http://indiankanoon.org