IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 654 of 2009(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.29237/2006 Dated 09/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARI MURUKA BHAVAN, MANKOOTAM, R.C.STREET,NEYYATTINKARA BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. NADESAN ACHARI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARI AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT PONNU BHAVAN, THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BHAGAVATHY AMMA, W/O. NADESAN ACHARI AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO..DO.. 3. ARUNJYOTHI, S/O.NADESAN ACHARI RESIDING AT DO....DO... 4. MANJUSHA, D/O. NADESAN ACHARI RESIDING AT DO....DO.. ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.654 OF 2009 in W.P.(C)No.29237 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. This review petition is against the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.29237/06 dated 9.8.2007. By the said judgment, this Court (another Bench) accepting a joint statement of settlement filed by the parties had disposed of the Writ Petition directing, in turn, that O.P.No.535/06 and O.P.No.556/2007 before the Family Court shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. 2. The review petitioner has now come before this Court with a prayer to review the said judgment. That judgment was passed on the basis of consent by both sides. Why should the judgment be reviewed now, after the elapse of a period exceeding two years? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the parties had agreed to abide by the terms of the said settlement, there has subsequently been non-compliance and disobedience with the said terms of settlement. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner wants the judgment to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that the boot is on the other leg R.P.No.654/09 -2- and it is the review petitioner who is guilty of non-compliance with the terms of settlement. 3. We do not propose to go into the controversy regarding truth of such mutual recriminations made by the parties. At any rate we are satisfied that there is absolutely no necessity to review the judgment passed. If subsequently there has been change of circumstances, the parties can approach the Family Court either for execution of the terms agreed upon or to pass fresh orders in the light of the changed circumstances. They can initiate appropriate fresh proceedings on that score. At any rate, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record that justifies or warrants review of the consent order passed by this Court. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn