HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2406 of 2002 Date: 27-8-2011 Between Sondi Pushpanadha Rao … Petitioner/Petitioner and Sondi Manikyam … Respondent/Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2406 of 2002 Order: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11-3-2002 in I.A.No.26 of 2002 in O.S.No.98 of 1995 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A.No.26 of 2002. He filed the said application under Section 151 of C.P.C., to permit him to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.32,278/- deposited by him in O.P.No.34 of 2001 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam dismissed the said application under the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the intention of the petitioner at the time of compromise in O.P.No.34 of 2001 was in respect of past maintenance also and the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order and that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the trial Court is maintainable ? 5. Point:- As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner and his wife entered into a compromise in O.P.No.34 of 2001. The said O.P., was filed for enhancement of maintenance. As per the terms of compromise, the petitioner-husband has to pay Rs.1,75,000/- to the respondent-wife. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- wife that there is no compromise between the parties in respect of the amount due in O.S.No.98 of 1995 and E.P.No.2 of 2000. It is also the contention that the husband has not paid the maintenance as per the decree in O.S.No.98 of 1995, for which the respondent-wife filed E.P.No.2 of 2000 and she got the amount attached. 7. As seen from the recitals in the Memorandum of Compromise, there is no clause in the said proceedings about the proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2000. 8. Therefore, in view of non-recital of the proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2000 in the Memorandum of Compromise, the petitioner- husband cannot contend that he is entitled to the amount in the absence of such direction in O.P.No.34 of 2001. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order under revision. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 27th August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2406 of 2002 27th August, 2011. (Ak)