IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 357 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.25/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/CR.PETITOINER: ------------------------------------------- SREEJESH.V.R., VAZHAPARAMPIL HOUSE THURUTHY PO., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASHA MOL.M.V. D/O.M.M.VASU, MANAKAPARAMBIL, PARIYARAM PO., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. KANNAN MINOR), REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST PETITIONER. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 357 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child. That direction for payment of maintenance was passed on the basis of a joint written statement filed by the parties consequent to attempts made before the Councilor to settle the disputes. That joint application was presented before the court by the Councilor. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The only grievance aired before me is that the agreement is not a result of any settlement. But the petitioner was coerced to subscribe his signature to the agreement. I find absolutely no merit in the contention raised. There is not a scintilla of material even remotely to suggest that R.P.F.C.No. 357 of 2008 2 the joint statement filed consequent to the settlement reached in the course of concilation before the Councilor was vitiated by any reason. Except the fanciful theory advanced before this court, there is nothing to suggest that there was no agreement between the parties before they agreed to settle the disputes and filed a joint statement before court. 3. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm