IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 210 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.345/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- K.RAJEEV, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, VARITTYAK, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SMITHA.P., W/O.RAJEEV, PULLOTU HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. VISHNU, S/O.RAJEEV, MINOR, REP.BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 210 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.345/08. The Family Court Judge by an order granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child from 13.10.08. The basis for the decision was a settlement arrived in between the parties. A perusal of the order would reveal that the matter was taken up in the presence of the both the parties and an order was passed. I need not unnecessarily doubt the correctness of the same. But as a matter of precaution this Court directed the circumstances under which this compromise was arrived at. A report has been filed by the counsellor wherein the wife was prepared to live with the husband but the husband was not willing to accept her and therefore they agreed to as follows. “Hence they prepared a joint statement in the respondent's own hand and was submitted to the Hon'ble Court.” R.P.(F.C.) NO. 210 OF 2009 -:2:- I had also perused the statement given and I do not find any suspicious circumstances warranting rejection of the same. So this is only an attempt to keep away from liability after having agreed to the settlement. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-