Devan Ramachandran , J.

The review petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 15.07.2025, not because there is any error apparent on its face; but on the allegation that the respondent is violating the agreement between the parties, which led to it.

2. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian – appearing for the review petitioner, argued that all the conditions imposed against his client in the memorandum of agreement between the parties, have been complied with; but that the respondent is still refusing to sign the application for divorce on mutual consent. He, however, conceded that, as regards the issuance of a “dependent card” from the Central Store Department, in favour of the child, though his client has applied for the same, it has not been issued since the latter has not reached ten years in age. He argued that, however, this require to be construed as substantial compliance.

3. Sri.U.Balagangadharan - learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the violation at the hands of the review petitioner is not as regards the afore card alone, but also qua the monthly maintenance, which he was to pay to the child, as also to her client. She argued that it is