IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 510 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.692/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- PARAYIL ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.KADEESAKUTTY, CHEREKKODE CHERNOOR, VELIMUKKU (PO), TIRURANGADI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KHADEEJA. BY ADV. MR.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. VETTIYATTIL ASIYA, D/O.MUHAMMED, M.H.NAGAR, KALIYATTA MUKKU, MUNNIYOOR (PO), TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. SAFOORA (MINOR),D/O. ASIYA, (MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) M.H.NAGAR, KALIYATTA MUKKU, MUNNIYOOR (PO), TIRURANGADI TALUK. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10865/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.510/2007 DISMISSED 2/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 510 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.692/05. The said petition was for enhancement of maintenance and it was enhanced to Rs.1,500/-. The court also directed to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as medical expenses. Now it is challenging the same the revision is filed before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent had brought to my notice by producing a copy of the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.285/09. In the said case the matter was settled between the parties and had made an endorsement in the M.C. for payment of Rs.2,300/- per month. That has been recorded and M.C. was allowed directing the respondent to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,300/- per month from the date of filing of that R.P.(F.C.) NO. 510 OF 2007 -:2:- M.C. Therefore subsequent enhancement also is conceded. In the backdrop of these developments there remains nothing for consideration and therefore the R.P.(F.C.) is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-