JUDGMENT Ashok Kumargaur, J. - The instant review petition has been filed by the respondent No.5 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9681/2006. The review petitioner has prayed for recalling the order passed by the court on 01.08.2018 and grant of regular family pension solely in her favour to the exclusion of Smt. Vimla, the mother of her deceased husband. 2. This court on 01.08.2018 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, in DBCWP No.9681/2006 had passed the order sought to be reviewed. 3. The overarching facts of the present case were taken into account while deciding the writ petition particularly that the marriage of the review petitioner was solemnized with her late husband Major Harsh on 12.06.2005 and he soon thereafter passed away on 13.09.2006. The facts of present review petitioner thereon as his dependent getting a government job on 28.01.2008 and further remarrying again on 27.06.2013, were taken into account. 4. This court after accepting the proposal of both the parties to share the amount of pension between them, finally allowed the writ petition and in view of settlement so being arrived at, dropped contempt proceedings in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.111/2016. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has submitted that the purported consent order passed by this court on 01.08.2018 is not a correct reflection of what transpired in court. No consent as attributed to the review petitioner was given. Counsel argued that the Army Pension Regulations only entitle the review petitioner-wife as the widow of the armyman to the entire pension. None of it can be granted to the mother of the deceased armyman on consent or otherwise. The court's order is thus exfacie contrary to the Pension Regulations. Learned counsel further argued that the original petitioner- Smt. Vimla was not dependent upon the deceased officer (late Major Harsh) as her husband was a retired Commandant in BSF and drawing pension. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. This court finds that the order dated 01.08.2018 was passed after both the parties had agreed on the terms and conditions settled between them to share the pension amount on account of death of Major Harsh. This court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, also dropped the contempt proceedings and notices were discharged. 7. This court finds that the order dated 01.08.2018 was passed after both the parties had agreed on the terms and conditions settled between them to share the pension amount on account of death of Major Harsh. This court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, also dropped the contempt proceedings and notices were discharged. The parties with full understanding agreed to arrive at amicable settlement and on such basis, this court had passed the order dated 01.08.2018. There is no substance in the submission of counsel for the review petitioner that settlement between the parties was arrived at without consent of the review petitioner. The affidavit of the advocate representing the review petitioner in the writ petition has not been filed. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner that remarriage of widow is not a disqualification for liberalized family pension, is now, after the settlement in court and its order thereon of no avail. On the settlement, this court finds that the review petitioner got a government job in the year 2008 and she further got remarried in the year 2013. She did not apparently assert and waived her right to pension in view of her government job. 9. This court finds in the background of the settlement in court little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner that parents of deceased Major Harsh will not be entitled for any amount as the writ petitioner was not dependent on late Major Harsh since husband of the writ petitioner is also receiving pension. This court finds that the family pension as per the settlement has been distributed and 60% of amount has been given to the parents and 40% to the review petitioner till the review petitioner got re-married. This court in view of the aforesaid factual situation obtaining and the settlement arrived at between the parties, passed the order dated 01.08.2018. 10. We are of the view that the review petitioner by entering into the settlement has in fact waived her rights and she cannot now be permitted to take a U-Turn and resile from the stand which was taken at the time the writ petition was decided. This court finds that the endeavour made by the review petitioner in the facts of the case is not a bonafide exercise of her right to seek review. This court finds that the endeavour made by the review petitioner in the facts of the case is not a bonafide exercise of her right to seek review. Further the order passed by this court on 01.08.2018 has been put to question by way of present review petition after expiry of period prescribed for filing the review petition. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the review petition as none of the grounds under Order 47 Rule 1 or analogous thereto are made out. The petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the petition as if in appeal. 12. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.