IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 102 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO ------------------------------------------------------------- KANTABEN SARDARMAL SONI W/O MANISH BALMUKUND HEDAOO Versus MANISH BALMUKUNDJI MOHANLAL HEDAOO -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR TS NANAVATI for Petitioner No. 1 MR JIGAR P RAVAL for Respondent No. 1-6 MR AJDESAI APP for Respondent No. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 09/05/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Mr.T.S.Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner is present. Mr.Jigar P. Raval, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP for the respondent No.7 - State are also present. 2. Mr.T.S.Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Jigar P. Raval, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 make a joint statement that contesting respondents will hand over the demand draft in sum of Rs.2, 35,000-00 [Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Only] to the petitioner today and Mr.Nanavati will accept the same, as full and final settlement of the past, present and future claims of maintenance in respect of the petitioner. It is also submitted by them jointly that contesting respondents will submit joint application for divorce before the Competent Court. Mr.Nanavati agrees that the petitioner will not proceed with Criminal Case No.20600 of 1998 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bharuch for the offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In that view of the matter and on account of the settlement between the parties, Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. This petition is ordered to be disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the aforesaid settlement between the parties, nothing required to be done by each party against the rival party. The copies of the demand drafts produced before the Court, the same are taken on record. [D. P. BUCH, J.] vijay