-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 59 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2936 OF 2003 Manjula Yadav ).. Petitioner Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and another ).. Respondents Mr S M Sakhardande a/w Ms N S Moily for the Petitioner. Mrs S I Shah i/b M/s S I Shah & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr R V Gangarkar i/b M/s Patil Gangarkar & Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A. S. OKA, J. DATE: 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 . P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Both the Applicant in the Review Petition as well as Respondent No.2 are present in Court. 2. Firstly, we hardly see any reason to recall the order dated 8th April 2004. But, in any case, parties have further mutually agreed that the said order be modified limited to the extent as follows :- (a) The arrears at the rate of Rs.1,000/- upto January 2008 has been paid in Court today by means of a Bank Draft bearing No.891900 dated 13th -2- September 2008 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mumbai for an amount of Rs.53,000/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand only). (b) The same has been accepted by the Applicant. (c) However, with effect from January 2008, as a gesture of goodwill towards the step-mother, Respondent No.2 has agreed to enhance the monthly payment payable to her from Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). (d) The amount of arrears payable with effect from January 2008 upto September 2008 shall be paid along with the monthly payment of October 2008. (e) Monthly payments shall be made by 10th of each calendar month in the Saving Bank Account No. 27093 of Bank of Baroda, Govandi Branch, Mumbai held by the Applicant, which Respondent No.2 herein has the obligation to deposit it directly. (f) The Respondent No.2 will not make defaults of payment of any amount. -3- (g) By this agreement, all disputes between the parties stand fully and finally settled. 3. The above terms have been fully accepted by the parties being fully aware that the order under review dated 8th April 2004 would hardly be called in question in this Court and further that they would abide by the terms now agreed. 4. As a token of acceptance of terms stated above, the Advocates on record appearing for the Applicant and Respondent No.2 as well as the parties, who are present in Court today, shall sign the consented order passed by the Court today itself. 5. Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. . 6. In view of disposal of the Review Petition, nothing survives in Notice of Motion No.531 of 2007 and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE A S. OKA, J.