Parties' disputes regarding compliance with a settlement agreement are not ground for reviewing a judgment that upheld that agreement.

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 only if all the conditions in the agreement are complied with, will it become enjoined on the part of her client, as per clause 20 of the memorandum, to sign the petition for divorce on mutual consent.

4. It is obvious from the rival submissions of the parties that the disputes of their clients are with respect to the memorandum of settlement and not our judgment. This application for review is against our judgment, which, admittedly, remains without any error, since it has only given full favour to the compromise between the parties. If the compromise has not worked out between the parties in terms of law, the remedies available to them are elsewhere.

This petition is consequently closed.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF RP NO. 96 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARDING PASS RECEIVED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER FROM THE AIR INDIA DATED 22.11.2025 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUNCTION RECEIVED BY THE REVIEW FROM THE CANTEEN OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE CSD CARD IS DATED 24.12.2025 Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DIVORCE PETITION PREPARED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER AND FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT NIL Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN REVIEW PETITIONER AND COUNSELS OF REVIEW PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT Annexure 5 SUGGESTIONS/ADDITIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT OVER AND ABOVE THE MEDIATION REPORT DATED NIL Annexure 6 ORIGINAL OF THE JOINT PETITION PREPARED BY THE PARTIES ON 07.07.2025 TO BE FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT