JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 14.11.2014 in O.P.No.78 of 2012 and the order on I.A.No.2258 of 2013 filed in the original petition. The wife is the appellant. 2. O.P.No.78 of 2012 was filed by the wife against the husband for maintenance. The husband filed O.P.No.77 of 2012 against the wife, seeking divorce. In the course of the proceedings, a compromise was entered into before the Principal Counsellor, agreeing to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage and for payment of certain amounts to the wife. 3. The husband filed I.A.No.2159 of 2013 to record the compromise, whereas the wife filed I.A.No.2258 of 2013 opposing the recording of the compromise. It was alleged that she was not fully appraised of the compromise or its terms. 4. The Family Court allowed the application filed by the husband, the compromise was recorded, and the judgment was passed. The application filed by the wife was dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. The terms of the compromise before the Counsellor read thus; 7. The wife alleges that she was not properly appraised about the terms and that a final settlement was in fact not arrived at. She did not have an opportunity to get an opinion from her counsel. Thus, she disputes the alleged compromise. 8. It is seen that, though the wife disputes of having arrived at a final settlement, she did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of her contentions. She did not even seek to get herself examined to prove her contentions. 9. We notice that, in O.P.No.78 of 2012 filed by the wife, the contention was that, at the time of marriage, she was having 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments, an amount of Rs.20,000/- given as patrimony, and household articles worth Rs.30,000/-. However, such claims were not made in the relief portion of the Original Petition. The relief claimed was only for maintenance. Clause (2) of the terms of settlement, as noticed above, relates only towards settlement of the claim for gold and money. Nothing is seen mentioned about the claim for maintenance. 10. The learned counsel for the wife seeks for an opportunity to adduce evidence on the applications. It is not in dispute that neither of the parties have acted any further in terms of the compromise. Nothing is seen mentioned about the claim for maintenance. 10. The learned counsel for the wife seeks for an opportunity to adduce evidence on the applications. It is not in dispute that neither of the parties have acted any further in terms of the compromise. Considering the entire facts as above, we are of the opinion that an opportunity could be granted to the parties to adduce evidence to substantiate their contentions. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The orders in I.A.No.2159 of 2013 and I.A.No.2258 of 2013, and the judgment in O.P.No.78 of 2012 will stand set aside. The Family Court shall consider I.A.No.2258 of 2013 and I.A.No.2159 of 2013 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the Family Court on 11.06.2025.