IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 236 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.47/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ K.SHAJI, S/O.KARUNAKARA KURUPPU, KADANGAL HOUSE, VALAKULAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- K.SHYAMA, D/O.K.A.PADMANABHA PANICKER, VADAKKUMPATTU HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O., CHETTIPADI VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 236 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order passed in M.C.47/07 of Family Court, Malappuram. Perused the records. Heard the counsel for the respondent. To start with a M.C.440/02 was filed by which the Court ordered maintenance to the wife and child. Thereafter the wife moved an application for enhancement of the compensation u/s 127 Cr.P.C. A joint statement was filed by the husband and wife and acting upon the same the Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child. The said order was passed on 5.12.06. Thereafter the husband moved an application for cancellation of the order in M.C.372/06 as M.C.47/07. The Family Court considered it on the basis of the materials available and it declined to interfere with the order for the reason that in both the previous maintenance cases also the husband had taken up a contention that the wife is an agent of the LIC and she is R.P(F.C.) NO. 236 OF 2007 -:2:- having substantial income and therefore she is not liable to be maintained by the husband. On the earlier occasions the same contention had been negatived and as per the joint statement of them the Court has granted enhancement of the amount already ordered. So when a joint statement is filed by two persons it is binding on them and unless there is specific change of circumstances thereafter the provisions of S.127 cannot be attracted. Here there is no specific case regarding the change of circumstances that has come into effect after the passing of the order in M.C.372/06 and therefore no circumstances exist u/s 127 to vary the order passed in M.C.372/06. So the finding of the Family Court regarding the non maintainability of this M.C.47/08 for the reason that there are no grounds to vary is only to be upheld and the R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-