Domestic-violence maintenance orders quashed following the parties’ full-and-final settlement.

The applicant invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge an order directing him to pay respondent no. 2 monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 and the appellate order affirming that direction.

During the application, the applicant and respondent no. 2 settled their disputes.

The settlement recorded payment of ₹57 lakh to respondent no. 2 and a further ₹5 lakh to their son in full and final settlement of the specified monetary and matrimonial claims; it also recorded that respondent no. 2 and the son had handed over possession of their respective portions, if any, at “Ram Niwas” and relinquished relevant claims against the applicant.

The intervenor asserted a 55% interest in the property, as against the applicant’s 45% share.

The parties accepted that respondent no. 2’s residential claim, if any, would be confined to the applicant’s 45% share.

1. Whether the impugned maintenance orders should be quashed in light of the parties’ settlement and full-and-final payment.

2. Whether respondent no. 2’s potential residential claim against “Ram Niwas” should be confined to the applicant’s 45% share.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides the High Court with inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice.

The judgment applied that jurisdiction to the parties’ settlement and the circumstances recorded before the Court.

It cited no precedent or other statutory provision as the basis for its decision.

The Court accepted the settlement, including the payments and the parties’ confirmation that possession had been handed over and relevant residential or possessory claims against the applicant relinquished to the extent legally permissible.

It also recorded the agreed limitation that respondent no. 2’s residential claim, if any, would be against the applicant’s 45% share, not the intervenor’s 55% share.

Finding that nothing remained to be adjudicated between the settling parties, the Court exercised its Section 482 jurisdiction to quash the challenged orders.

It clarified that respondent no. 2’s residential claim, if any, was confined to the applicant’s 45% share in “Ram Niwas”.