JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner-husband has filed the present Writ Petition against the order on IA No.5 dated 8.9.2014 passed in MC No.2595/2007 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-husband against the alleged respondent - divorcee/divorced wife. 2. The respondent-wife filed MC No.2595/2007 under the provision of Section 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short] seeking divorce urging various contentions. The same was opposed by the petitioner-husband by filing objections. 3. During the pendency of the said Matrimonial Case, both the parties have filed Memorandum of Settlement u/s.89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2007, before the Family Court. On 15.9.2008, in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties, Matrimonial case came to be decreed. Thereafter, the wife (respondent herein) filed C.Mis.No.203/2011 u/s.127 of the Cr.P.C. claiming for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- from her husband (petitioner herein). The said C.Misc. Petition was opposed by filing objections. The trial Court in view of the application IA No.IV filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected as not maintainable, the application IA No.IV came to be allowed and C.Misc. 203/2011 filed by the wife-respondent u/s.127 of Cr.P.C. claiming enhancement of maintenance came to be dismissed. According to the petitioner, the said order has reached finality. 4. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed an application u/s.25(2) of the Act for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month in a disposed of matter, urging various contentions. The present petitioner filed objections to the said application and specifically contended that the very application filed u/s.25(2) of the Act is not maintainable and the respondent-wife was not entitled for any further enhancement. It is further contended that the present application filed only to harass the petitioner. Once the matter was settled before the Mediation Centre and decree came to be passed, the same cannot be re-opened except in a case of fraud if any alleged or non execution of the compromise decree. In the absence of the same, the present application is not maintainable. 5. Even before consideration of the application filed u/s.25(2) of the Act, on the objections raised, the present petitioner filed one more application IA No.V to dismiss the application filed u/s.25(2) as not maintainable. In the absence of the same, the present application is not maintainable. 5. Even before consideration of the application filed u/s.25(2) of the Act, on the objections raised, the present petitioner filed one more application IA No.V to dismiss the application filed u/s.25(2) as not maintainable. The family court by the impugned order, dismissed the application IA No.V filed by the present petitioner u/s.151 of CPC. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri B.S. Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting the application IA No.V filed by the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the materials on record. He would further contended that the family court failed to notice that in a disposed of matter, on the basis of the compromise petition which came to be attained finality, an application under sub section (2) of Section 25 of the Act is not maintainable. The Family Court ought to have rejected the application. He would further contended that when once the decree came to be passed, with the consent of all the parties in Mediation u/s.89 of the CPC, by way of an application under Section 25(2) of the Act for enhancement of maintenance cannot be revoked and the same has to be considered by the Family Court. He would further contend that the Family Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, he sought to allow the Writ Petition. 8. Per contra Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, for Ms. Rachita Nanaiah, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order of the Family Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. He would contend that in view of the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act, if the court is satisfied that there is a changed circumstances of either at any time after it has made an order under sub-Section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. 9. In view of the above said provision, he would submit that the application filed by the petitioner is nothing but stalling the court proceedings. 9. In view of the above said provision, he would submit that the application filed by the petitioner is nothing but stalling the court proceedings. It is for the court to decide the application u/s.25(2) of the Act and consider the objection raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent wife filed the petition under the provisions of Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act, raising various contentions for divorce. During the pendency of the said proceedings, on the basis of the settlement between the parties and in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, the Family Court decreed MC No.2595/2007. The decree was made in terms of the settlement, which reads thus: "1. Both the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and other terms of the result are as follows: a. The custody of the child born out of wedlock on 24.02.2000 (male) be with the mother. b. The respondent/father has got visiting rights with regard to the child is concerned and as the respondent is working in Military Force, with due intimation to the petitioner/mother, shall have right of visit. c. During the period of 1st Sept, 2008 to 31st Dec, 2008, a sum of Rs. 9500/- per month be the maintenance charges towards the petitioner and as well as the minor child. d. After, 31st Dec, 2008 and commencing from 1.1.2009, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month be the maintenance charges towards the petitioner and also the child till the child attaining the majority. Further, during the age of minority of the child, the petitioner shall take utmost care and welfare of the child as she is in custody of the child. e. Either party have no claim of whatsoever nature except the above said payment / receipt of alimony. Further, the payment of money is concerned, the money shall be credited to the account of the petitioner as of now prevailing between the parties. f. Petitioner is permitted to use the Smart Card carrying the facilities available to the military personnel according to rules and regulations. 2. Both parties have settled their claim with regard to their belongings given/taken at the time of marriage. 3. f. Petitioner is permitted to use the Smart Card carrying the facilities available to the military personnel according to rules and regulations. 2. Both parties have settled their claim with regard to their belongings given/taken at the time of marriage. 3. If the petitioner is going to marry after orders of divorce, the payment of maintenance shall be reduced to the extent of Rs.5000/- and to which the minor child is entitled till attaining of majority." 11. It is also not in dispute that after the disposal of the MC Petition in terms of the compromise entered, the respondent-wife filed C.Mis.203/2011 before the Principal Family Court u/s.127 of the Act for enhancement. On the objection filed by the present petitioner, the said C.Misc. Petition came to be allowed rejecting the petition as not maintainable. The Family Court dismissed the application filed by the wife u/s.127 of the Act and the said order has reached finality. 12. After failed to succeed in C.Mis.No.203/2011, the wife filed an application u/s 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in a disposed of matter i.e., in MC No.2595/2007 for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.60,000/- urging various contentions. 13. It is also not in dispute that the said application is opposed by the present petitioner by filing a petition raising the question of maintainability of the application. In view of the subsequent rejection, dismissal order passed on 28.9.2013 in C.Mis.203/2011 u/s.127 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court decide the application u/s.25(2) of the Act with reference to the objection, the petitioner filed an application u/s.151 of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the application filed by the wife as not maintainable. This is nothing but stalling the proceedings before the Family Court u/s.25(2) of the Act. 14. The provisions of Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads thus: "25. Permanent Alimony and Maintenance. 1. This is nothing but stalling the proceedings before the Family Court u/s.25(2) of the Act. 14. The provisions of Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads thus: "25. Permanent Alimony and Maintenance. 1. Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. 2. If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. 3. If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just." 15. On careful reading of the said provision, makes it clear that after consideration of the order passed u/s.25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on an application filed by either of the party if the court is satisfied that in the changed circumstance either of the party at any time may vary or modify or rescind such order, such manner as the court deems fit. Before such exercise is made by the Family court on the application for which respondent-wife and the objection filed by her. This is nothing but stalling the proceedings. Before such exercise is made by the Family court on the application for which respondent-wife and the objection filed by her. This is nothing but stalling the proceedings. The Family court consider the very provision relied upon by the petitioner's objections recorded a finding that the provision is clear if the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances, then the court may consider such application, the said application has been filed by the petitioner and should be urged by the parties when there is any changed circumstance in order to enhance maintenance for the petitioner-wife and her child. 16. When such being the case, without considering that aspect giving liberty to the petitioner wife, it cannot be dismissed in lemini though it was argued that there is a Memorandum of Settlement between the parties and settlement which has been agreed by both the parties cannot again go back against the decree. These are the points which has to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, when such being the case, I do not find any reasonable ground at this stage to consider the application filed by the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. IA No.V filed by the present petitioner is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court in rejecting the application filed u/s.151 of CPC. It is open for the Family Court to decide the application filed u/s.25(2) of the Act with reference to the objections raised and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.