IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 266 of 2008() ------------------------------- MC.204/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.VIDHYADHARAN S/O.P.K.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KARYAVATTAM KALARI MANNARMALA P.O., VIA. PATTIKKAD PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.SANTHA S. PARAKKAL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. BABY GIRIJA, 33 YEARS D/O.P.K.GANGADHARA PANICKER PALAKKOTTUKALARICKAL, "MUNDANATTUKARA", PAVUKONAM DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM OTTAPPALAM TALUKK. 2. SUMANGALA, 12 YEARS, D/O.BABY GIRIJA 3. VEENITH, 10 YEARS, S/O.BABY GIRIJA. 4. VINOD, 8 YEARS, S/O. BABY GIRIJA. (2, 3 & 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT) BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 266 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order directing payment of maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to the claimants who are the wife aged 33 years and minor children aged 12 years, 10 years and 8 years respectively of the petitioner. Maintenance has been granted at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each to the wife and the eldest child and Rs.500/- per mensem each to the children aged 10 years and 8 years. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of an agreement entered into by the contestants in proceedings before the Principal Counsellor of the Family Court at Palakkad. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the R.P.(FC) No. 266 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner submits that the agreement before the Principal Counsellor was not entered into voluntarily and genuinely; but the petitioner was compelled to enter into such an agreement. The learned counsel was requested to produce before this Court a copy of the joint statement (razi) mentioned in the impugned order. The copy has been placed before me. It is conceded that the joint statement is prepared in the handwriting of the petitioner and the petitioner has signed the same. The claimant/ wife has also affixed her signature. The same has been countersigned by the Principal Counsellor. 3. There can be no dispute that a settlement can be arrived at before the Counsellor attached to the Family Court. Rule 35 of the Family Court (Kerala) Rules, 1989 reads as follows: “35. Settlement before Counsellor.-- When the parties arrive at a settlement before the Counsellor relating to the dispute or any part thereof, such settlement shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the parties and countersigned by the Counsellor. The Court shall pronounce a decree or order in terms thereof unless the court considers the terms of the settlement unconscionable or unlawful.” R.P.(FC) No. 266 of 2008 -: 3 :- 4. There is nothing illegal in the agreement. The agreement is entered into in perfect compliance with the stipulations of law. Though the petitioner now contends that the settlement was not voluntary and the petitioner was compelled by the Counsellor to enter into such an agreement, it remains in the realm of unsubstantiated and empty assertions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that the terms are unconscionable. The quantum of maintenance which has been directed to be paid is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that even, according to the claimants, the petitioner is only a driver. I shall assume that the petitioner to be a driver. Reasonable inferences about the probable income of such a skilled worker can be assumed. In any view of the matter, I am unable to agree that the total quantum of maintenance directed to be paid i.e., Rs.2,500/- per meansem for 4 souls is so perverse or excessive as to justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Family Court. The learned counsel airs the apprehension R.P.(FC) No. 266 of 2008 -: 4 :- that this settlement may stand against the petitioner in such application for restitution of conjugal rights. I need only mention that the agreement in the claim under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. can only be reckoned as an arrangement for payment of maintenance till the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is disposed of on merits. If the petitioner succeeds in securing an order for restitution of conjugal rights, needless to say, the consequent alteration of the order under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. can be sought if the claimant/wife refuses to cohabit with him in spite of such order. 7. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 266 of 2008 -: 5 :-