Judgment : 1. The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in C. Misc. No. 318 of 2007 before the Family court at Mysore, claiming maintenance as wife and children of the petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the Court below directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance from the date of petition. Hence, the present petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Sri Nataraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He contends that there was a settlement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and as a consequence of which, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as full and final settlement. Hence, he contends that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Sri Sangamesh, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the document relied upon by the petitioner has been produced for the first time before the Court. He contends that even though notice being served, he remained absent and therefore, the Court below passed an ex parte order. By placing reliance on the original Annexure-B, he contends that the same is fabricated and cannot be considered. 5. On a perusal of Annexure-B, the settlement arrived at between the parties on the face of it is fraudulent. Even though notice of the petition was issued, the petitioner has not chosen to contest, but remained absent. Hence, it is hard to believe as to how this document could have been executed on 4-5-2009. On merits, the Court below having considered the plea of the respondents has properly passed the impugned order. The finding recorded is that as 1st respondent/wife has become anemic, and the respondents 2 and 3 are undergoing education, minimum amount is required for the day-to-day maintenance. Hence. I find no error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. Petition rejected.