ORDER

(Dated this the 2nd day of June 2022)

The petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.24 of

2013 on the files of the Family Court, Kasaragod and the respondent was the petitioner therein. The said M.C. was filed by the petitioner husband under Section 127 Cr.P.C for cancellation of the monthly maintenance ordered in M.C.No.212 of 2009 to the respondents.

2. The respondents/wife and children filed M.C.No.212 of 2009 under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C claiming monthly maintenance from the petitioner. The said petition was allowed on 4.2.2010 as an ex-parte order and directed to provide monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the first respondent, Rs.750/- to the second respondent and Rs.500/- to the 3rd respondent from the date of order. The first respondent also filed O.P.No.206 of 2011 for dissolution of marriage. The said petition was allowed on 19.10.2011. MC 148/2012 was filed before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hosdurg under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) 1986 (for short 'the Act’). The petitioner on coming to know about the proceedings, through mediators and advocates on both parties intervened and the parties agreed to settle amicably and ultimately, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- to the petitioners as full and final settlement of all cases, including M.C. No.212 of 2019. Thereafter, Talaq was pronounced by the petitioner on 3.9.2012 and paid the amount as agreed. An agreement was also executed and counter-signed by the counsel on both parties. The first respondent/wife was made to believe that the amount paid is in full settlement and satisfaction including the maintenance amount ordered in M.C.No.212 of 2019. As the petitioner have discharged his liability by paying the amount mentioned above, the maintenance ordered in M.C.No.212 of 2019 has to be cancelled in view of the changed circumstances and hence, filed the MC.

3. The respondents filed counter contending that it is true that the first respondent/wife has settled all the cases pending between them in various courts for an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- except the order in M.C. No.212 of 2009 pending in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, at the time of settlement, has offered to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3 by giving maintenance amount directly. As per the assurance of the petitioner, the first respondent waited for six months but since the maintenance amount to respondent nos.2 and 3 was not paid C.M.P.No.43 of 2013 was filed for arrears of maintenance. The agreement executed between the petitioner and the first respondent is not at all binding to the minor respondent Nos.2 and 3 restraining them from realising future maintenance.

4. The petitioner produced Exts.A1 to A3 and got himself examined as PW1 along with the counsel appearing on both sides as PW1 to PW3. The first respondent herself was examined as RW1.

5. The Family court, by the impugned order cancelled the maintenance order dated 4.2.2012 in M.C. No.212 of 2009 in toto. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed by wife and children.

6. Heard.

7. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the agreement executed between the petitioners and first respondent for payment of lumpsum amount of Rs.5,10,000/- as full and final settlement amount will not bind the minor children as the agreement is opposed to public policy. The wife / first petitioner has filed M.C. No.148 of 2012 under Section 3 of the Act and she received the amount of Rs.5,10,000/- as the amount due to her under the said section. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the first petitioner has already received the amount of Rs.5,10,000/- on the basis of the agreement between herself and the respondent, she is not aggrieved by the cancellation of the maintenance order in respect of her, but only aggrieved by the cancellation of the maintenance order in respect of the minor children i.e., petitioner nos.2 an