IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.531 of 2009 Ujjawal Kumar Dutta s/o late Anil Kumar Dutta r/o Shastri Nagar, Bandarjori, P.S. – Town Thana, District – Dumka …………. Appellant Versus Alpana Kumari w/o Ujjawal KumarDutta, d/o Shambhu Nath Das, r/o Mohalla Laluchak Gumti No.12 P.O. and P.S. Ishakchak, District – Bhagalpur ……………… Respondent with MA. No.699 of 2009 Alapan Kumari Vs. Ujjawal Kumar Dutta ----------- For the appellant: Mr.Rajendra Narayan, Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates (in MA No.531/09) Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates For the respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate (MA. No.531/09) Mr.Rajendra Narayan, Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates (MA. No.699/09) --- 4 12/1/2010 Regard being had to the commonality of the order impugned the appeals were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. In MA. No.531 of 2009, the husband has called in question the decree for divorce passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Family 2 Judge as regards the cruelty meted out to wife are not founded on the material on record. MA. No.699 of 2009 has been preferred by the wife challenging the meager sum that has been granted towards maintenance which relates to pendente lite maintenance. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan and Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the husband and Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the wife. In course of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the parties fairly agreed that the decree for divorce be affirmed with certain modifications; that the son, namely, Taushik shall remain in custody of the wife; that the amount of alimony be enhanced to Rs.1500/- for the present till the son attains the age of majority; that the sum shall stand reduced to Rs.1000/- after the son becomes major; and that the proceeding that has been initiated under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the wife bearing Mojahidpur Ishakchak P.S. Case no.162 of 2005 be quashed. 3 In view of aforesaid submissions, we affirm the decree for divorce, but direct that as far as the amount of alimony is concerned, the same shall be enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month till the son, namely, Taushik attains the age of majority and thereafter shall stand reduced to Rs.1000/-. Further, he shall remain in custody of his mother and the father would be at liberty to visit the son on Sunday between 2 P.M. to 5 P.M. Be it reiterated, these aspects are not controverted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant in MA. No.531 of 2009. As has been indicated hereinabove the parties agreed for quashing of the proceeding initiated under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. We have sought the assistance of Mr. S.K.Ghosh, learned Additional Advocate General – II, whether State has any objection for quashing of the same and Mr. Ghosh with all fairness on his command submitted that when a decree for divorce has been passed and parties have arrived at a settlement and the matter has been finalized, the proceeding should be quashed. 4 In view of aforesaid, in exercise of our inherent power, we quash the proceeding initiated under section 489A of the Indian Penal Code forming the subject matter of Mojahidpur Isakchak P.S. Case no.162 of 2005. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)