~~~~~~~~~~~ T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J.
The petitioners are the children of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent herein is the other brother of the petitioners.
2. Eventhough notice was ordered, 2nd respondent signed the notice and notice to the 1st respondent returned with endorsement 'refused'. Accordingly, service has been treated as complete as against both respondents. Nobody appears for them also.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. The background of the present litigation is as follows:
The marital relationship between the 1st respondent and the mother of the petitioners got strained, which resulted in filing a petition under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the mother before the Magistrate Court as per Ext.P1. An interim order was passed therein by the learned Magistrate as per Ext.P2. The 1st respondent then approached the Family Court, Kasaragod by O.P.(F.C.)No.105/2014 2 filing a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein, which was numbered as M.C.No.105/2011. It is averred that all the disputes were settled as evident from Ext.P3.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the obligations of the mother of the petitioners under the agreement have been fulfilled by them, but, the father, the 1st respondent, has not transferred 20 cents of the property out of 37 cents of property in the name of the petitioners and their mother. It appears that the father approached the Family Court, by filing C.M.P.No.433/2013 in M.C.No.105/2011 contending that the mother of the petitioner did not fulfill her obligations. Petitioners, thereafter, appeared before the court below and filed objections as Ext.P5 which was disposed of by the Family Court as per Ext.P6.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the contentions or objections have been considered on merits by the Family Court.
7. We have perused Ext.P6. It is observed by the Family Court as follows:
“But the party have not complied with the agreement”.
O.P.(F.C.)No.105/2014 3 This conclusion is not supported by reasons.
In fact the specific contention raised by the petitioners in Ext.P5 have not been considered in detail as evident from the said order. Then the contention is that the obligations under the agreement have been fulfilled by the petitioners. We find that the said aspect to be looked into by the Family Court after hearing both sides. The parties could have been allowed to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
8. Therefore, the matter requires re-consideration by the Family Court. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P6 order. The Family Court will reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders on Ext.P5 objections filed by the petitioners, after hearing both sides. It is stated that already the Family court has ordered warrant as against petitioners and the 2nd respondent. The same will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed as directed above.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE ps/23/10/2014 //True copy// PA to Judge