Through: v. STATE & ANR

1. This a petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.456/2000 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC of P.S. Ambedkar Nagar 0,- the ground that the petitioner No. 1/Rakesh Mishra/husband and the respondent No.2/Sunita/wife have settled all their matrimonial disputes. In pursuance to which, a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent was obtained from the Court of competent jurisdiction on 23.09.2010. It has also been stated that a total sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 and her minor female child on account of permanent alimony, maintenance etc. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.l lac has 2011:DHC:9715 aiready been paid and the balance of amount of Rs.75,000/- is to be paid. All the petitioners are present in Court and are duly identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent No.2 is present in ·court and is duly identified by her counsel. She has also supported the averments made in the petition. L Learned APP has raised an objection with regard to the terms:md conditions of the settlement according to which only a sum of Rs.l,75,000/- is to be paid on account of permanent alimony and maintenance of the respondent No.2 and her minor female child. It is contended by the learned APP, that the statement of the respondent No.2 so far as the grant of maintenance qua her minor female child, who is aged about 14 years, is concerned that would bind her only till the time she attains majority. It is also contended that once she attained majority she is free to take her own decision as to whether she would like to obtain any maintenance etc. from her father/ oetitioner No.1 in accordance with law or not.

3. I have carefully considered the settlement. I feel there is some merit in the contention of Mr.Sharma that the settlement of the mother would bind the minor daughter only till the time she attains majority and once the child attains the age of majority she will be free to take her own decision in respect of the settlement agreed by her 'llOther.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have been divorced on the basis of mutual consent and they have settled all their matrimonial disputes, I feel no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. Accordingly, FIR No.456/2000 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC of P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and the charge-sheet pending in the Court of Ms.Puja Talwar, M.M., Saket are quashed.

5. Parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 30, 2011 m~, / V.K. SHALl, J