IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 53 of 2010() --------------------- MC.219/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :- --------------------------------------------------------- RAHUMNDEEN, AGED 53, SUPERVISION I O W OFFICE RAILWAY STATION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :- --------------------------------------------- 1. NADBEESATH BEEVI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.HAMEED KUNJU, VAZHOLIL THEKKATHIL, VALIYA KULANGANGARA OACHIRA. 2. RAIHANA, AGED 7 (MINOR), D/O.NABAEASATH BEEVI, VAZHOLIL THEKKATHIL, VALILYA KULANGARA OACHIRA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. K.SIJU THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------- R.P(FC) No.53 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance of the Family Court, Kollam in M.C.219/05. The husband had moved the revision against the order of maintenance. It has to be stated that both the parties by virtue of their agreement for compromise, the revision petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the child and Rs.1000/- per month to the wife. On the basis of such a consent the Family Court had passed the order of maintenance. There is no case for the revision petitioner that the said consent order is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity. Where the order is passed on the basis of the consent unless it is vitiated for reasons known to law it is not correct to entertain a revision against such an order. Therefore I decline to entertain this revision and therefore it is dismissed. But I make it clear that by subsequent change of R.P.(FC) No.53 of 2010 -2- circumstances, and if Sec.127 of CRPC permits, the party can approach appropriate court for cancellation or variation of the order as the case may be. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Jvt