IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28466 of 2007 1. Pramod Kumar Mishra, Son of Rama Shankar Mishra. 2. Puja Mishra @ Reena, Wife of Pramod Kumar Mishra. 3. Ramashankar Mishra, Son of late Ram Briksha Mishra. 4. Vinod Kumar Mishra, Son of Rama Shankar Mishra. All rresidents of New Mainpur, P.S. Danapur, Distt. Patna. 5. Jhuna Mishra @ Muna Mishra, Son of Inderjeet Mishra, Resident of Vill. Mahila, P.S. Kurhni, Distt. Bhabhua, Kaimur. ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the S.P. Patna. 2. Sunita Mishra, D/o R.N. Tiwari. Resident of 8, State Bank Colony, Takiapur, P.O. Digha, P.S. Danapur, Distt. Patna. ------- Opposite Parties ----------- 10 12.10.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the earlier orders of this Court dated 21.8.2009, 17.9.2009 and 7.10.2009 respectively. Under these orders, this Court had only recorded the view of the learned counsel for the parties who have sought to convey this Court that the parties intend to settle the matter outside the court. This Court, taking into account that such dispute had arisen out of a matrimonial matter, had accordingly given indulgence and today a joint compromise petition has been filed, wherein, the terms and conditions of the compromise has been recorded as follows:- 1(i) The petitioner no.4 (Vinod Kumar Mishra) has agreed for a deduction 2 of total amount of Rs. 8000/- from his salary henceforth from October, 2009 and the same be paid to Opposite Party no.2 (Sunita Mishra) and his son for their maintenance till her life time. (ii) The son of the Opp. party no.2 Himanshu Mishra will be the legal heir and will have his right in the ancestral property of his father. (iii)The Criminal Cases filed on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the Opp. party no.2 are as follows:- (a) Danapur P.S. case no. 181/2000. (b) Danapur P.S. Case No. 68/2006. (c) Complaint Case no. 511(c)/2000. (d) Danapur P.S. Case No. 510/2005. It has also been agreed that none of the parties would pursue the aforesaid mention cases any further and all shall be withdrawn hence forth. (iv) That in view of the aforesaid developments the relationship of the petitioners including the petitioner no.4 (Vinod Kumar Mishra) with the Opp. party no.2 (Sunita Mishra) would also cease to exist it would amount to a mutual consent divorce.” Counsel for the parties also submit that this would be the full and final settlement of the dispute and that barring any contingency which may arise on account of any unforeseen circumstances, they will abide by 3 such compromise. The husband-petitioner no.4 and his father, petitioner no.3 as also his wife, petitioner no. 2 are personally present in this Court and they also accept the terms and conditions of the compromise wholeheartedly. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 is quashed and the remaining cases also filed by the parties would stand withdrawn on filing of the application along with a copy of this order in the respective court. At the same time, the petitioner no.4, the husband in order to enable the opposite party no.2 to get the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the month of October, 2009 as also the arrear, if any, of an earlier period would do every thing possible to see that such payment starts being made in the account of the opposite party no.2 within a period of one month from today. The competent authority of the Army Headquarter and/or the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner no.4 is also directed to ensure that such deduction of 4 the amount as agreed by the petitioner no.4 before this Court is remitted to the opposite party no.2 in the same manner in which she was earlier being paid Rs. 4059/- per month under the earlier order of the court below. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application stands allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)