(1.) CRL. M.A. No. 16516/2010 On 15th September, 2010 respondent No. 2 offered to the petitioner a sum of ' 14 lacs plus the amount lying deposited in the Court, towards full and final settlement of all her claims i.e. permanent alimony, istri-dhan, maintenance etc. subject to, however, her agreeing to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. On 21st September, 2010 it was brought to the notice of this Court that this offer was acceptable to the petitioner. It was agreed that both the parties would withdraw cases which they had filed against each other. Present case was re-notified on 8th December, 2010 to enable the parties to take steps in this direction. On 21st October, 2010 the case was adjourned for today. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 has preferred this application. It is stated that their daughter had also filed a case under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the respondent No.2 thereby claiming a sum of ' 5,35,000/- towards the maintenance and marriage expenses. By this application respondent No. 2 seeks modification of the order dated 21st September, 2010 to the effect that the sum of ' 14 lacs plus a sum of ' 2 lacs already lying deposited in the Court shall also include the claim of their daughter. It has been brought to my notice that daughter of the parties is since married and living with her husband and children. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner cannot settle the claim of her daughter, who is major and had been pursuing the legal remedy available to her independent of the litigation between the parties. This Court cannot direct any of the parties to settle their disputes in a particular manner. Offer of respondent No. 2, as contained in this application, is not acceptable to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is, dismissed.
(2.) PETITIONER is wife of respondent No. 2. She has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order dated 24th January, 2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby she has been summoned under Section 500 IPC, be quashed and petitioner be discharged.
(3.) RESPONDENT No.2 being in Government service was occupying an official accommodation. Petitioner had also been living in the same house in spite of the fact that relations between the husband and wife remained strained and they continued to litigate in the court. After his retirement, respondent No. 2 had to vacate this official accommodation. Apprehending that she would be rendered homeless, petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein she has been granted '3500/- per month for separate accommodation.