1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2279 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2010 Mr.Mohd.Azam Ali Hussain Ali Siddiqui ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Ms.Mallika A. Ingale for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.Amanutaullah S.H. Kahn for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MAY 3, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for respondent no.2. 2 Parties have settled the dispute and have 2 filed consent terms in Criminal Application No.678 of 2010. Consent Terms are marked X for the purpose of identification and are taken on record. 3 Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said complaint, an application was made for maintenance. The learned Magistrate was pleased to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. Against this order, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Judge was pleased to enhance the compensation to Rs. 10,000/-. 4 Parties have filed Consent Terms in Criminal Application No.678 of 2010 and in the consent terms, it is agreed that the applicant shall pay lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as alimony for respondent no.2 and her child. This amount has already been paid by the applicant to respondent no. 3 2. In view of the Consent Terms, the impugned order passed by the Sessions court dated 21st January, 2010 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 5 Respondent no.2 in para 8 of the consent terms has undertaken to withdraw the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Respondent no.2 has also given her no objection for quashing the criminal case which is filed under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 of the IPC. 6 In view of the Consent Terms, therefore, Criminal Application No.2279/2010 is allowed. An affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2 in the said application is taken on record. She has also given her no objection through the said affidavit. In view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, Supreme Court 1386, in my view, the said complaint also is liable to be 4 quashed. 7 Criminal Application, accordingly, is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 8 Both the applications, accordingly, are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)