IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2007 / 31ST SRAVANA 1929 RPFC.No. 343 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST MC.196/03 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER : ----------------- THOMAS A., S/O.DEVASSYA, AGED 42YEARS, ALKARA HOUSE, CHAPPARAPADAVU PO, KOOVERI AMSOM, PADAPPANGADU DESOM THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- ELIYAMMA ALKARA, D/O.POULOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, CHAPPARAPADAVU PO, KOOVERI AMSOM, PADAPPANGADU DESOM THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(F.C.) No. 343 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007 O R D E R The revision petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent herein, was the counter petitioner in M.C.No.196/03 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. The said M.C. was filed on 13.12.2002. On 4.5.06 pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent as evidenced by the endorsement made by both sides, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only) per month with effect from 19.4.05 onwards. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.742/06 seeking cancellation of the order passed in M.C.No.196/03 contending, inter alia, that he had not willingly or voluntarily agreed for settlement. The Family Court as per the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 disallowed the said request. R.P.(FC)No.343/07 : 2 : 2. A party, who has made a written endorsement before court in support of the settlement arrived at between the parties, shall not be permitted to resile from the same with a view to wriggle out from the liability which he has incurred thereby. If the M.C. was to be ordered as prayed for, then the liability of the petitioner would have related back to 13.12.2002. Instead, as per the settlement, the maintenance which the petitioner was bound to pay was only with effect from 19.4.05. The disinclination of the petitioner even to pay the said amount cannot be appreciated at all. I see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision is accordingly dismissed. (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE) aks