High Court Kerala High Court

Sreejesh.V.R. vs Asha Mol.M.V on 27 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sreejesh.V.R. vs Asha Mol.M.V on 27 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 357 of 2008()


1. SREEJESH.V.R., VAZHAPARAMPIL HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASHA MOL.M.V.
                       ...       Respondent

2. KANNAN MINOR),

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :27/01/2009

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   R.P.F.C.No. 357 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009

                               O R D E R

The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125

Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-

p.m. each to the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child.

That direction for payment of maintenance was passed on the

basis of a joint written statement filed by the parties consequent

to attempts made before the Councilor to settle the disputes.

That joint application was presented before the court by the

Councilor.

2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all

admitted. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned

order. What is his grievance? The only grievance aired before

me is that the agreement is not a result of any settlement. But the

petitioner was coerced to subscribe his signature to the

agreement. I find absolutely no merit in the contention raised.

There is not a scintilla of material even remotely to suggest that

R.P.F.C.No. 357 of 2008
2

the joint statement filed consequent to the settlement reached in the

course of concilation before the Councilor was vitiated by any reason.

Except the fanciful theory advanced before this court, there is nothing

to suggest that there was no agreement between the parties before they

agreed to settle the disputes and filed a joint statement before court.

3. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm