Santosh Kumar S. v. Lathika and Amrutha (minor)

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH` ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ## `OP(CRL.) NO. 142 OF 2020` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP NO.92/2016, M.C.NO.219/2016, CRL.M.P.NO.558/2019, CMP NO.96/2017 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 AND CRL.M.P.NO.556/2019 IN CMP NO.97/2017 IN M.C.NO.2019/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA AND THE ORDER IN CMP NO.78/2019 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM. ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` SANTHOSH KUMAR S., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.SIVADAS,VAYALIL VEEDU, AKKARAVILA, VENDOOR MUKKU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT NAMATH VEEDU, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV B.MOHANLAL ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1LATHIKA, D/O.SIVASANKARAN, LATHIKA BHAVAN, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. ``` - `2 AMRUTHA,` ``` D/O.LATHIKA, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN LATHIKA, D/O.SIVASANKARAN, LATHIKA BHAVAN, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY ``` ``` THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 13.09.2021 THE COURT ON 12.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:2:- ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2021 This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs : “i. To set aside Ext.P9 order in C.M.P. No.92/2016, Ext.P11 order in M.C. No.219/2016, Ext.P13 order in Crl.M.P. No.558/2019 in C.M.P. No.96/2017 in M.C. No.253/2009 and Ext.P14 order in Crl.M.P. No.556/2009 in C.M.P. No.97/2017 in M.C. No.219/2016 of the Family Court, Chavara and Ext.P12 order in C.M.P. No.78/2019 in M.C. No.253/2009 of the Family Court, Kollam directing the petitioner to pay maintenance Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2. ii. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to the respondents in Ext.P9 order in C.M.P. No.92/2016, Ext.P11 order in M.C. No.219/2016, Ext.P13 order in Crl.M.P. No.558/2019 in C.M.P. No.96/2017 in M.C. No.253/2009 and Ext.P14 order in Crl.M.P. No.556/2009 in C.M.P. No.97/2017 in M.C. No.219/2016 of the Family Court, Chavara and Ext.P12 order in C.M.P. No.78/2019 in M.C. No.253/2009 of the Family Court, Kollam. iii. To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The averments of the petitioner in the Original Petition were that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent was solemnized on 24.05.2004 at Member Narayana Pillai Memorial Auditorium, Chavara as per Hindu Religious Rights O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:3:- and a girl child was begotten in the wedlock, that due to differences of opinion, the marital relationship got strained and thereupon O.P. No.1131 of 2009 was filed by the 1[st] respondent and M.C. No.253 of 2009 by the respondents seeking for monthly maintenance allowance. The issues involved in the cases above have been amicably settled among the parties whereby the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1[st] respondent and file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). It was agreed among the parties that out of Rs.1,00,000/- agreed to be paid to the 1[st] respondent, Rs.50,000/- will be deposited in the name of the 2[nd] respondent and the balance Rs.50,000/- will have to be utilised for meeting the expenses of the 1[st] respondent. An undertaking was also made by the 1[st] respondent in the agreement that she will not claim any past or future maintenance or other benefits for herself and for the 2[nd] respondent from the petitioner. 3. Following the settlement, an application as O.P. No.1181 of 2010 was filed jointly by the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent before Family Court, Kollam seeking for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Act, true copy of which is produced O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:4:- alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P1. In O.P. No.1128/2009 also a settlement as averred was arrived at before the Family Court, Kollam. In O.P. Nos.1128/09 and 1131/09, Rs.50,000/was agreed to be paid to each of the petitioners before 30.10.2010 and to continue to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to respondents 1 and 2, over and above payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum. In addition to compliance of the above terms, the parties had also agreed to sign and file a joint petition for divorce, true copy of which agreement is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P2. Both the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent filed proof affidavit in OP(HMA) No.1181/10 pending on the files of Family Court, Kollam on 30.04.2011, true copies of which are produced along with the petition on hand as Exts.P3 and P4. The Family Court dissolved the marriage of the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent by an order passed in OP(HMA) No.1181/10 on 31.07.2012, true copy of which is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P5. Thereafter CMP No.92/16 was filed in MC No.253/09 pending on the files of Family Court, Chavara on 03.09.16 seeking for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- on the basis that the petitioner O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:5:- being a contractor in KSEB was getting Rs.25,000/- as monthly income. Objection was filed to the effect that, since the claim for future maintenance stands relinquished by Exts.P1 to P4, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It was further contended that a decree dissolving the marriage was already passed and therefore, the application is only liable to be dismissed, true copy of the objection dated 03.09.2016 is produced alongwith this petition as Ext.P6. True copy of the proof affidavit dated 28.10.2016 filed by the 1[st] respondent in CMP No.92/16 in M.C. No.253/09 is also produced alongwith as Ext.P7. Thereafter the respondent filed MC No.219/16 before Family Court, Chavara seeking for monthly maintenance allowance, true copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P8. Without taking note of the agreement executed by the parties as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P4 and the undertaking made therein, the Family Court has passed an order enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the same from 24.03.2015, true copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P9. In the petition filed as CMP No.92/16 in MC No.253/19, the petitioner has taken ## O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:6:- a contention that he is a heart patient and to establish the factum medical records and report of the Coronary Angioplasty undergone by him were also produced. Though Crl.M.P. No.92 of 2016 was sought to be dismissed by him, Family Court, Chavara, has passed an ex parte order in MC No.219/16 overlooking the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed by that order to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 2[nd] respondent from 03.11.2016, true copy of which is produced alongwith this petition as Ext.P11. CMP No.78/19 was then filed by the petitioner in MC No.253/09, before Family Court, Kollam seeking for modification of the order passed in MC No.253/09 but the Family Court dismissed the application by its order dated 25.07.2019, true copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P12. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Crl.M.P. No.558/19 in CMP No.96/17 in MC No.253/09 and Crl.M.P. No.556/19 in CMP No.97/19 in MC No.253/09 before the Family Court, Chavara seeking for execution of Exts.P5, P9 and P11 orders and in those, warrant stands issued against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has also filed an application contending that the claim for maintenance being settled among the parties O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:7:- as per Exts.P1 to P4, the respondents are entitled to get only Rs.2,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance. It is contended that the Family Court, Chavara has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing Exts.P9 and P11 orders and therefore the warrant issued is required to be recalled. The Family Court dismissed the applications by orders passed on 04.11.19, true copies of which are produced alongwith as Exts.P13 and P14. It is contended that Exts.P9, P11, P13 and P14 orders passed by Family Court, Chavara and Ext.P12 order passed by Family Court, Kollam directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively to respondents 1 and 2, despite settling the entire past and future claims as per Exts.P2, P3 and P4 are liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner, he has left with no other alternative remedy than to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly filed the Original Petition on hand seeking for the reliefs. 5. At the time when the Original Petition was primarily heard, this Court has appointed Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the Original Petition on the legal aspects. Sri. Saigi Jacob has cited Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:8:- Kapoor and others [AIR 2020 SC 1064], Benny v. Mini [2021 (1) KHC 723], Dr.Ashish Ranjan v. Anupama Tandon and another [2010 KHC 4945], Biju v. Adeep and another [2018 (1) KHC 236], Muhammed Siyad v. Jasna [2021 (1) KHC 755], Teena M Ansari v. Rinoy Eappen [2019 (4) KHC 593] and Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] to apprise the court on the settled position of law on the point. Now the issue relevant for consideration in the Original Petition is the sustainability of Exts.P9, P11, P13 and P14, orders passed by Family Court, Chavara and Ext.P12 order passed by Family Court, Kollam. 6. Ext.P2 is nothing but a memorandum of agreement executed by the parties in O.P. Nos.1128 and 1181 of 2009 pending on the files of Family Court, Kollam under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, pursuant to settlement of terms in a process of mediation. The terms and conditions of settlement as agreed to by the parties to the above cases have been extracted as follows : “i. The opposite party should pay Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) each to the wife and minor child on or before the 30[th] October, 2010. ii. The opposite party agreed to continue the payment of O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 ## -:9:- Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) each for wife and child as maintenance. iii. After the payment of the above said one lakh rupees both parties agreed to sign and file a joint petition for divorce before the Family Court, Kollam.” 7. It is found on a scrutiny of Ext.P2 that the petitioner and the respondent and their respective counsel have subscribed their signature to the terms incorporated therein. As per Ext.P2, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to each of the respondents on or before 30.10.2010, that he shall continue to pay Rs.1,000/- each as monthly maintenance allowance to each of the respondents and that the parties shall file a joint petition for divorce before Family Court, Kollam after making the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has agreed to continue the payment of Rs.1,000/- each as monthly maintenance allowance to the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. It has not been agreed among the parties that the respondents, who are the wife and the child of the petitioner shall not raise any further claim for monthly maintenance allowance before any court of law. Ext.P3 is the proof affidavit laid in the joint application filed under Section 13B of the Act. It has been stated therein that the issues among the parties have been amicably settled in mediation and therefore, the Family O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:10:- Court, Kollam was approached by filing a joint petition seeking for dissolution of marriage solemnized on 24.05.2004 as per Ext.A1 marriage certificate. Ext.P4 is the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner before Family Court, Kollam in OP(HMA) No.1181/2010. The terms of settlement arrived at among the parties have been reiterated by the petitioner in the proof affidavit. It has also been stated that gold ornaments and house hold articles belonging to the 1[st] respondent have been returned to her in view of the settlement arrived at. Accordingly, he has also sought for dissolution of marriage solemnized on 24.05.2004 as per Ext.A1. Ext.P5 is the copy of the order passed by Family Court, Kollam on 31.07.2012 in OP(HMA) No.1181/2010. 8. It is revealed from the order that the petition was allowed and a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was passed under Section 13B of the Act and the marriage between the parties was declared as dissolved with effect from 31.07.2012, the date of the decree. Ext.P6 is the counter statement filed by the petitioner herein in M.C. No.253 of 2009. It has been stated therein that Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be paid as monthly maintenance allowance to the 1[st] respondent O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:11:- in the counseling held at Family Court, Kollam and an order has been passed based on the term agreed on 10.08.2010. It has been further stated that, having due regard to the educational requirements of the minor child and his marriage on attaining the age of majority that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in cash to the 1[st] respondent and the said amount was deposited in Federal Bank, Chavara Branch. It has also been stated that Rs.2,000/- agreed to be paid monthly is also being paid regularly. The decree for dissolution of marriage obtained in OP No.1181/10 was also made a mention in the counter statement and on its basis M.C. No.253/09 was sought to be dismissed. Copy of M.C. No.253/09 was not made available to this Court by the petitioner. But, it is disclosed from the counter statement that Rs.10,000/- was sought as monthly maintenance allowance. In M.C. No.253/2009, CMP No.92/16 was filed by the respondent and Ext.P7 is the proof affidavit filed therein. The settlement arrived at before the Family Court, Kollam in M.C. No.253/09 was referred to in the proof affidavit. It has been further stated in the proof affidavit that since the cost of living, expenses for education, clothes, food and medicines have been considerably increased, Rs.2,000/- stands ordered in M.C. No.253/09 being ## O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:12:- inadequate is required to be modified and enhanced as Rs.10,000/-. Proof affidavit was also filed before Family Court, Chavara on 28.10.2016. In the meantime, M.C. No.219 of 2011 was filed by the 1[st] respondent for herself and for and on behalf of her minor girl child namely Amritha before Family Court, Chavara seeking for monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each to them. Copy of the said M.C. is produced as Ext.P8. It has been stated in Ext.P8 that the petitioner herein had agreed to maintain them from 24.05.2006. The petitioner herein had filed counter statement in CMP No.92/16 copy of which is appended to the petition on hand as Ext.P10. The ailments of the petitioner is described in detail in the counter statement and documents to establish those have also been produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Family Court, Chavara has passed an order in CMP No.92/16 on 30.11.2016 enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.4,000/- payable from 24.03.2015 onwards. It is noticed from Ext.P9 order that after entering appearance in the CMP, the respondent failed to turn up and contest the proceedings and therefore was declared ex parte. It is pertinent to note that the objection filed by the petitioner and the documents produced by him were not O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:13:- considered by the Family Court. The impugned order is silent of any of the contentions raised by him in the objection filed and the documents produced in support thereof. The monthly maintenance allowance has been increased in consideration of the increase in the cost of living due to passage of time. Thereafter the petitioner has filed applications as Crl.M.P. No.271 and 272 of 2017 in CMP No.92/16 in M.C. No.253 of 2009 on 17.02.2018, almost two years after passing of Ext.P9 order, copy of which is appended to as Ext.P10. He has also produced Exts.A1 to A5 referred to in his objection filed in Crl.M.P. No.92/16 alongwith the petitions referred to above. Family Court, Chavara has allowed M.C. No.219/2016 on 15.02.2017, by Ext.P11 order and the petitioner herein was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 2[nd] petitioner from 03.11.2016 onwards. The petitioner herein then filed CMP No.78/19 in M.C. No.253/09 seeking for modification of the order passed in the M.C. The Family Court, Kollam has passed Ext.P12 order dismissing the application. While passing Ext.P12 order, the Family Court has made mention that the petitioner failed to produce any records to prove that the terms of settlement arrived at in O.P. No.1131/2009 and O.P. ## O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:14:- No.1128/2009 are fully complied with. The Family Court has also made an observation about the failure of the petitioner to prove that the payment of the money agreed in the mediation has been paid. Accordingly, the court found the petitioner unable to get the order passed in M.C. No.253/09 modified and let the order in M.C.No.253/09 to be in force. Thereafter Crl.M.P. No.558/19 was filed by the petitioner in CMP No.96/17 and Family Court, Chavara has dismissed the same by Ext.P13 order observing that since the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- agreed to be paid to respondents is pending, the order of warrant issued cannot be recalled. 9. In the factual situation narrated above, it is relevant to see whether after arriving at the terms of settlement as incorporated in Ext.P2 and subscribing those, the respondents are entitled to file applications seeking for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance. It is pertinent to note from Ext.P2 that settlement in mediation was arrived at in O.P. Nos.1128 and 1131 of 2009. Though as on 10.08.2010, the date of execution of the memorandum of agreement as Ext.P2, M.C. No.253/09 seeking for monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to respondents was pending O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:15:- consideration of Family Court, Kollam, it was not settled in mediation. M.C. No.253/09, pending consideration of Family Court, Kollam, was closed on the undertaking of the petitioner herein that he would pay Rs.1,000/- each to respondents as monthly maintenance allowance. In Ext.P2 the petitioner has unilaterally agreed to continue payment of Rs.1,000/- each to the wife and the child as maintenance allowance based on his undertaking made before Family Court in M.C. No.253/09. Since the parties have filed joint petition and the Family Court, Kollam has passed Ext.P5 order dissolving the marriage, it can be inferred therefrom that Rs.1,00,000/- agreed to be paid in favour of respondents had already been paid, since it was a condition precedent for preferring a joint application under Section 13B of the Act. It was thereafter that CMP No.92/16 was filed by the respondent seeking for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.2,000/- stands ordered as payable, to Rs.4,000/-. The reason stated in the application was that in view of the increase in cost of living and educational expenses of the 2[nd] respondent, the 1[st] respondent finds it difficult to pull on. In the Crl.M.P., the petitioner was served with notice, but he remained ex parte in the proceedings. It was in such a circumstance that the O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 ## -:16:- Family Court has passed an order in CMP No.92/16 enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.4,000/-. 10. It is true that the parties cannot withdrew from the terms of settlement arrived at voluntarily. But in the case on hand, M.C No.253/09 was closed not based on any settlement but on the undertaking of the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents. In Ext.P2 settlement, the petitioner herein has agreed to continue the payment of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents. It is true that both parties have subscribed their signature to the above terms which were also countersigned by their respective counsel. Therefore, it has attained the quality of a contract voluntarily entered. But it is pertinent to note that any further claim for enhancement was relinquished by the terms in Ext.P2. Under Section 127 Cr.P.C the wife and child are entitled to prefer an application seeking for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance, if they are able to establish any change in circumstances than those prevalent at the time of filing of the M.C. In the case on hand, projecting that the cost of living and educational expenses have been increased due to passage of time, the 1[st] respondent has approached the Family Court by O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:17:- filing CMP No.92/16 seeking for modification of Rs.4,000/- stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of herself and the child to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner herein was served with notice in the application but he remained ex parte. In the absence of any contest, the Family Court found merit in the averments of the 1[st] respondent. After efflux of six years from execution of Ext.P2 that CMP No.92/2016 was filed seeking for modification of monthly maintenance allowance. The petitioner though served with notice, failed to appear and contest and the Family Court was constrained to consider the application exparte and pleased to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2[nd] respondent as Rs.10,000/-. 11. Matters being so, the 1[st] respondent had filed M.C. No.219/19 before Family Court, Chavara under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking for fixation of monthly maintenance allowance to herself and child afresh at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each. This Court without any hesitation holds that the 1[st] respondent is not entitled to file M.C.No.219/16 under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C, since an order was passed in the original M.C. No.253/09 and orders passed subsequently in modification of it are in force. Family Court, Chavara is not empowered to entertain an application filed O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:18:- by the 1[st] respondent afresh, after obtaining an order granting monthly maintenance allowance and orders modifying it successively in her favour. In the above circumstances, this Court holds that M.C. No.219/16 is not maintainable and that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 order being an unsustainable one, is only to be set aside and this Court do so. For failure of the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the respondents in M.C. No.253/09, execution was resorted to by the respondents and orders have been passed therein as Exts.P13 and P14. The said orders being valid and legal are not interfered with. OP(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 stands allowed in part and Ext.P11 order is set aside. MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE. ttb O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 -:19:- ``` APPENDIX ``` ## `PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 13B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT JOINTLY BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/10/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. ``` - `EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.1128/2009 AND O.P.NO.1181/2009 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.` - `EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 30/04/2011 IN O.P.(HMA) NO.1181/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.` ``` EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 30/04/2011 IN O.P.(HMA) NO.1181/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. ``` - `EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/07/2012 IN O.P.(HMA) NO.1181/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM.` - `EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 03/09/2016 IN C.M.P.NO.92/2016 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/10/2016 IN C.M.P.NO.92/2016 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN M.C.NO.219/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2016 IN C.M.P.NO.92/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` ## O.P.(Crl.) No. 142 of 2020 ## -:20:- - `EXHIBIT P10` - `THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION C.M.P.NO.92/2016 DATED 17/02/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.219/2016 DATED 15/02/2017 THE FAMILY COURT,CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2019 IN C.M.P.NO.78/2019 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.` - `EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2019 IN CRL.M.P.NO.558/2019 IN C.M.P.NO.96/2017 IN M.C.NO.253/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2019 IN CRL.M.P.NO.556/2019 IN C.M.P.NO.97/2017 IN M.C.NO.219/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16/06/2020 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` - `EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2020 IN C.M.P.NO.187/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P S TO JUDGE ```