IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 196 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.381/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P.SATHEESH, S/O.K.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, SUNIL NILAYAM, SIVAJI NAGAR, PANDIT HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL POST, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- S.KALAMANI, D/O.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, EDAKKANDI VALAP, P.O.MATTAMPURAM MOSQUE, THALASSERY. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5013/07 IN RP(FC) NO.196/2007 DISMISSED 11/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 196 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.381/06. The Family Court ordered a maintenance of Rs.750/- on the basis of a statement filed before the Counsellor. The party wanted to retract from the compromise statement and therefore the Court questioned the counter petitioner in the petition and wanted to make it sure that he had understood it. I had gone through the entire papers in the case record. Here is a person who is living in Mangalore. He had his wife somewhere from Kerala and he claims to be a Tamilian. Even the affidavit is prepared in English and signed by him and he signs in English. The post of a Counsellor in a Family Court is a statutory one and it is specifically provided in order to mediate the matrimonial dispute between the parties and it is before such an authority both the parties have affixed their signature and given a statement. Now when an order is passed it is challenged on R.P.(F.C.) NO. 196 OF 2007 -:2:- the ground that he did not understand the statement he has given. The Family Court was satisfied about the correctness of the statement I am also satisfied about the same for the reason that the present revision petitioner is a person capable of understanding what is written therein and nobody will sign a paper without knowing of it especially when it is before Court a of law. People cannot be taken for a ride at that stage because they come to the Family Court only after almost finishing all other forums for redressal of their grievance. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court. Therefore the revision fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-