IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.44 of 2007 Ranju Kumari w/o Anandi Alok and daughter of Shashi Kant Chaudhary resident of 110 Magistrate Colony P.S. Shastrinagar, District – Patna and presently village Andhara P.S. Andhara Chathu, District - Madhubani … Appellant Versus 1. Anandi Alok son of Manikant Azad resident of 110 Magistrate Colony, P.S. Shastrinagar, District – Patna 2. Sunil Kumar s/o Sri Raj Kant Chaudhary, r/o village + P.O. Chaura Mahrail P.S. Jhanjharpur, District – Madhubani …….. Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Arshad Alam, Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, Mr. Md. Arif, Mrs. Anjum Perween, Advocates For the respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocates --- 17 29/1/2010 This is an appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act assailing the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case no.211 of 2002, whereby the learned Family Judge at the instance of the husband has passed a decree for divorce. Be it noted, the order passed by the learned Family Judge, specially ordering portion though not properly couched, Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant – wife and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent – husband, fairly stated that it should be only treated as a 2 decree for divorce by which the marriage has been dissolved. When this matter was taken up on earlier occasion a suggestion was given to the learned counsel for the parties to explore the possibilities for settlement. Regard being had to the aforesaid suggestion, learned counsel for the parties appeared and stated that the appellant – wife and the respondent – husband have come and they would like to participate in the proceeding. In view of the aforesaid, the proceeding was taken up in camera. In course of hearing with the intervention of learned counsel for the parties the following settlement has been arrived at: a) The decree for divorce directing dissolution of marriage between the parties would stand confirmed. b) The son, namely, Ashish Kumar born in the wedlock shall remain in custody of the wife – appellant and the respondent – husband at no point of time shall claim custody of the son. c) The husband shall pay a sum of 3 Rs.7,00,000/- towards permanent alimony in five instalments. d) The first instalment of Rs. 1.5 lakh as agreed to shall be paid on 10th of April, 2010. The further three instalments shall be paid at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakh each on 10th August, 2010, 20th December, 2010 and 10th April, 2011 respectively. The last instalment of Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid on 10th August, 2011. e) In case of any failure to pay the instalment the learned Family Judge shall proceed to attach the property of the respondent – husband. f) The criminal case being C.R. No. 915 of 2002 instituted under sections 498A & 379 I.P.C. pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani is quashed and Cr. Revision no.702 of 2002(an application for cancellation of bail) pending in the court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The appeal stands disposed of on the above 4 terms and accordingly the order of the learned Family Judge stands modified. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)