The enforceability of settlement agreements in maintenance matters is upheld, regardless of alleged violations in related custody matters.

ORDER

Annexure A18 order issuing distress warrant for recovery of maintenance arrears is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2. There were four cases pending between the petitioner and the respondents before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, including M.C.No.193/2016 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. All the cases were referred for mediation to the District Mediation Centre, Kottayam, where the matter has been settled and Annexure A2 memorandum of agreement was entered into. All the cases were disposed of in terms of the settlement. As per Annexure A2 memorandum of agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. Since the petitioner failed to comply the said direction, the respondents filed execution petition as CMP No.113/2020 claiming a total maintenance due of ₹75,000/- with effect from 1.8.2019 to 1.11.2020. The Family Court issued Annexure A18 distress warrant in the said proceedings which is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure A2 memorandum of agreement is not enforcible inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has violated the terms of the settlement agreement. According to the counsel, denying the visitation rights of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has taken the respondent No.2 abroad. The settlement regarding the custody of the child was arrived at in OP (G&W) No.307/2017. The settlement regarding the maintenance was arrived at in M.C.No.193/2016. Even if there is any violation in the settlement arrived at with reference to OP(G&W) No.307/2017, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not liable to comply with the terms agreed in M.C.No.193/2016. If at all there is any violation, the remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Family Court to get it enforced. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is dismissed.