ORDER

The Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order passed in amendment petition in Cr.M.P.No.489 of 2018 filed in M.C.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the learned Family Court, Trichy.

2. The petitioners are the parents of the respondent. They filed maintenance case in M.C.No.35 of 2017 before the Family Court, Trichy, claiming the maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. During the pendency of the same, the petitioners have filed the memo. On the basis of the memo., the learned family judge, Trichy, has passed the following orders:

“This petition filed by the petitioner under Section

125 of Cr.P.C., on 05.04.2017 praying this Court to direct the respondent to pay the maintenance amount for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month each petitioners (total Rs.20,000/- p.m amended as per order in Cr.M.P.No.489 of 2018 in M.C.No. 35 of 2017 dated 28.01.2019) and as maintenance from the date of filing this petition and the maintenance amount has to paid to the petitioners.

Both parties present. Memo filed and recorded to with draw the case. the parteis represented that they compromised with their son/respondent. Hence, petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.”

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the amendment petition stating that to delete portion of the order stated as “ In the order dated 30.05.2018 (I) instead of total Rs.2,000/- p.m to be corrected as Rs.20,000/- (ii) instead of they compromised with their son/respondent to be corrected as willing to withdraw the above complaint and file it as his necessary in later.” The said petition was allowed partly and dismissed the portion relating to the second clause stated as “In the result, this petition is allowed in part, by allowing the amendment of the order passed in M.C.No.35 of 2017 with regard to clause (I) of the details of amendment and the petition is dismissed in respect of clause (ii) of details of amendment.” challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed the memo only to withdraw the case, but the learned Family Judge, Trichy, without any basis, incorporated the portion that “The parties represented that they compromised with their Son/Respondent”. The same was affected the pending case between the parties. Hence, the learned Family judge, Trichy, committed error in dismissing the petition for amendment. Therefore, this petition has been filed to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.489 of

2018 in M.C.No.35 of 2017.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Family judge acted as per the representation made by the parties and the counsel on record. In the impugned order, it is stated that the learned Family Judge dismissed the same on the ground that memo was recorded and the compromise was entered into between the parties. Hence, the judicial act is not amenable by way of the amendment. As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the judicial Officer discharged his duty by rendering the Judgment on the basis of the submission of the counsel on record, the amendment petition is rightly dismissed by the learned trial judge. He further submitted that learned family judge passed the order after considering the demeanour of the witnesses. In the said circumstances, there can be interference in the order passed by the learned family Judge, Trichy.

5. This court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners are the parents of the respondent. They initially filed the maintenance petition in M.C.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the learned Family Court, Trichy claiming maintenance. It is stated in the petition that the respondent obtained settlement deed fraudulently and after obtaining the settlement, he failed to maintain them. Hence, they filed petition claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. Pending the same, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2018 against the respondent to cance