rsk 1/2 40-WP-4032-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4032 OF 2019
Dr. Ajay Rajman Singh and Ors. …Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Respondents
—-
Mr. R. V. Gupta for the Petitioners.
Mr. Devansh Malhotra for Respondent No.2.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent/State.
—-
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 5/2/2020.
P.C.:
. Petitioners are present with their advocate. Respondent No.2 is
present with her advocate. Parties are jointly requesting for quashing of
chargesheet and FIR which is under sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 read with
34 of IPC.
2. The Consent Terms are already agreed between parties and
the same have been tendered in Family Court, Bandra in Marriage Petition
No.F-20009/2019 for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent.
3. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has received Rs.5 Lakhs and
amount of Rs.15 Lakhs is already deposited by the Petitioner in Family
Court which she can withdraw after FIR is quashed and set aside and
Domestic Violence case is withdrawn. Balance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is to
be received by her at the end of divorce proceedings
before the Family Court.
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 20:55:58 :::
rsk 2/2 40-WP-4032-19.doc
4. As per the Consent Terms the respondent No.2 is entitled to
custody of child by name Shivansh aged 2 ½ years.
5. We have perused FIR as also the Consent Terms. As interest of
minor child is involved, we deem it fit to see that in case of any difficulty
minor is not left unprovided for.
6. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 has tendered additional affidavit
stating therein that he is ready and willing to contribute for betterment and
welfare of Shivansh in case of emergency and necessity till respondent No.2
does not remarry. We accept that affidavit.
7. Respondent No.2 has also tendered additional affidavit stating
that she can manage herself and child and she will not raise any claim for
educational expenses or other expenses for welfare of Shivansh.
Considering the welfare of minor we are not in position to accept this
statement.
8. However, as the petitioner No.1 and respondent have arrived
at settlement, they are free to abide by it keeping in mind that interest of
minor is paramount and it needs to be protected.
9. In view of readiness and willingness shown by the petitioner
No.1, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 20:55:58 :::
