- (1.) Instant miscellaneous application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.1 viz., Sunita Choudhary for modification/clarification of the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by this Court.
(2.) This Court on 23.01.2014 on the basis of the 'consensus' arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, had passed the following order:- 1. "Sunita Chaudhary was married with Manoj Kumar, son of the petitioners. During the course of arguments, this Court was informed that Manoj Kumar is posted as Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army. It has been very fairly stated that during subsistence of marriage, from the loins of Manoj Kumar, Sunita Chaudhary has given birth to a son whose age is 12 years. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an amount INR 35,000/- per month is being paid to the respondent aggrieved daughter-in-law by her husband Manoj Kumar, son of the petitioners. It is stated that the Military Authorities have passed an order regarding payment of part of the salary to the wife and child as maintenance. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court earlier had passed interim order directing the petitioners to provide accommodation to the aggrieved wife in the house in which they are residing. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that subsequently, the trial court had rejected prayer of the respondent daughter-in-law regarding possession of shared accommodation. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that aggrieved against the same, aggrieved daughter-in-law had filed an appeal before the appellate court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the appellate court had remanded the matter to the trial court. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. At the out set, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the respondent is daughter-in-law and mother of their grand child without admitting her claim on merits, petitioners are ready to provide a reasonable amount to enable their daughter-in-law to take accommodation on rent. 6. It is stated that petitioners are living in a house of 200 square yards and respondent daughter-in-law will be entitled to one room accommodation. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for a payment of INR 4000/- per month, respondent daughter-in-law will be able to take commensurate accommodation on rent. 8. Shri Ashvin Garg, counsel appearing for the respondent daughter-in-law has stated that amount of INR 4000/- per month will not be sufficient as the respondent daughter-in-law require two room set and at least an amount of INR 6,000/- per month should be paid to the respondent daughter-in-law. 9. During the course of arguments, counsel for both the parties have arrived at consensus that payment of INR 5,000/- per month shall be made by the petitioners to the respondent daughter-in-law and that will serve the ends of justice. 10. After hearing counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the view that this Court should grant due sanctity to the consensus arrived between the parties during the course of arguments. 11. Consequently, the present petition is, disposed of with a direction that petitioners shall continue to pay INR 5,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and their grand son till the grand son attains majority. 12. In view of the order passed on the basis of consensuses arrived at between the parties, the claim of the respondent sofar as accommodation is, concerned, the same stands adjudicated and therefore, the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, on this score shall not prevail. However, the dispute regarding maintenance and other issues is, kept open.
(3.) This Court had requested the learned counsel appearing for the parties that looking to the plight of the lady and the grand-son, the grand-parents should provide funds commensurate for provision of an alternative accommodation.;