IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 183 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.654/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ AJIKUMAR, S/O. BHARGAVAN ASSARI, RADHA BHAVAN, VELAVOOR, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- PREETHA, D/O. SAROJINI, VENKUTTAYIL VEEDU, KONCHIRA.P.O, VEMBAYAM, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR, MR.S.JIJI . THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.5053/2009 IN RPFC. NO.183/2009 CLOSED 15/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.183 OF 2009 ====================== Dated this the 15th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C.No.654/2005, whereby the Family Court ordered maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.1,000/- on the basis of a concession given by both sides. What is recorded is that:- “with the consent of both sides, the M.C is disposed of on condition that the C.P/husband shall pay maintenance to the petitioner/wife at Rs.1,000/- per month from today,ie., 3.1.2009.” 2. Had it been a civil litigation, the proper remedy would have been to direct the parities to approach the court where the concession is made so as to find out the truth regarding it. The Family Court was exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C and Section 362 of Cr.P.C does not grant a power to the Family Court to alter the judgment when it is signed. It can be seen that the High Court had issued a R.P.(F.C) No.183 OF 2009 2 circular as early as on 4th October 1968 by Circular No.28/68 :- “The High Court is of the view, for obvious reasons, that such controversies should be avoided. And it feels that this can be achieved if the presiding officer gets counsel making a concession on a point canvassed by the pleadings or the memorandum of appeal to record the concession either in the issue paper or in the memorandum or on a separate paper under his signature. This record must be initialled and dated by the presiding officer and must be available among the case records.” 3. Now this Court is in a very disadvantageous position to know what exactly had happened. At the sometime there is no compliance of the circular issued by the High Court. Therefore, when there are no materials to prove the consent the inevitable result is to set aside the order and send it back to the Family Court for further consideration. The Family Court is at liberty to consider the entire matter afresh and determine quantum and need not confine itself to Rs.1,000/-, which is ordered by it on account of the concession. The entitlement and quantum be R.P.(F.C) No.183 OF 2009 3 decided in accordance with law. Let the parties be permitted to adduce further evidence and the matter be disposed of as early as possible. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 21.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns