Karappan @ Unnikrishnan v. Kamalakshi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/21ST MAGHA, 1936 RPFC.No. 367 of 2014 () ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 229/2011 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR DATED 0607-2013 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

--------------------------------------------- KARAPPAN @ UNNIKRISHNAN KIZPADIYIL HOUSE, PARAMELPADY DESOM, KONDAZHI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------- KAMALAKSHI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.KARAPPAN @ UNNIKRISHNAN, KIZPADIYIL HOUSE PARAMELPADY DESOM, KONDAZHI VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT-679106.

BY ADV. SMT.M.P.MARY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No. 367 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2015

ORDER

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.7.2013 in M.C.No.229/2011 of the Family Court, Thrissur. The revisionist -husband was the respondent and the respondent herein was the petitioner, therein. That was the petition moved under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the revision petitioner. The family court, after considering the evidence adduced by both sides found that the revision petitioner is liable to maintain the respondent and accordingly ordered the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent herein. This revision petition has been filed against the said order. At the instance of the parties the matter was referred for mediation and it was successfully mediated and pursuant to it, a Memorandum of Agreement under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008 has been filed. It is evident that the marital

R.P(F.C) No. 367 of 2014 disharmony has been resolved and the parties have agreed to live together as man and wife. It was agreed by both sides to withdraw the cases, criminal and civil (referred to in the statement) filed against each other. The learned counsel on both sides endorsed the same and further stated that the parties have already started living together. In the said circumstances, taking note of the settlement which should form part of this judgment, the impugned order passed by the Family court, Thrissur is set aside. It is ordered that both the parties are bound hereafter by the terms and conditions in the aforementioned settlement. This revision petition is allowed as above.

Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

dlk