VANITHA Vs. NEELAMBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the petitioners in MC.No.667 of 2012 of the Family Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioners sought maintenance from the respondent herein. According to the first revision petitioner, she was married to the respondent and the second and third revision petitioners were born in the matrimonial relationship. It was alleged that from 19.7.2008 on wards, the respondent failed to maintain the revision petitioners. The first revision petitioner was not employed and did not have any source of income. The respondent was working in gulf and earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per month. He was also engaged in contract business. Hence, the revision petitioners sought maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the first revision petitioner and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each to each of the children.

(2.) The respondent filed an objection denying his liability to pay maintenance. He contended that wife was living separately without any reasonable cause. It was further stated that there were other proceedings between the parties and the disputes were mutually settled. As per the terms of the settlement, OP.No.716/2011 was filed under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In the joint application, the terms of settlement were reiterated. As per the settlement, Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) was liable to be deposited, in full and final settlement of all claims, which he had deposited. The first revision petitioner thereafter failed to pursue the joint application for divorce and consequently, the application was dismissed. It was contended that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the revision petitioners were not entitled for any maintenance.

(3.) The above MC was tried along with OP.No.1189/2012. By an order in MC.No.667/2012, the application was dismissed, holding that the revision petitioners were not entitled for any maintenance. The court essentially relied on the compromise entered into the first revision petitioner and the respondent. It was held that after entering into a settlement and after undertaking that the revision petitioners will not claim any maintenance, first revision petitioner was not justified in seeking maintenance for herself and for the children. This order is assailed in this revision.