ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is a stange case which reflects two marriages and a child born out of each of them and coincidently the matrimony in both has come to an end. In one marriage the husband had died and in the other marriage the husband has been separated by a divorce. 2. One woman claims to have married two men. One was the husband of the other woman. 3. The facts which culminated and ultimately saw an end to the litigation itself before this Court or the court below centre around a triangular relationship. The two woman before this Court are Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and Mrs. Manju Moitra. Mrs. Sharda Agarwal was married on 6 February 1976 to Mr. G. D. Agarwal. This marriage was dissolved on 19 April 1983 by a court order. Both the husband and wife are alive but separate. There is a child from the marriage. 4. The couple is Mr. S. P. Moitra, now dead, who married Manju Moitra on 29 November 1971. This marriage did not survive as Mr. S. P. Moitra died on 9 March 1986. 5. Prantika Agarwal is the child born during wedlock on 20 December 1976 to Mr. G.D. Agarwal and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal. Somit Moitra was born on 11 October 1979 between the marriage of Mr. S. P. Moitra and Mrs. Manju Moitra. So far there were no issues between the parties, but the mess begins after this. 5A. It is claimed by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal ' that on 28 December 1979 her daughter, Prantika Agarwal, was given by her in adoption to and was adopted by Mr. S. P. Moitra by a registered adoption deed, whatever it may be worth. an aspect which is relevant is that of the two marriages both the husbands were alive and marriages were subsisting. The first issue that reflects before the court is could there be such an adoption? 6. On 15 October 1980 Mrs. Sharda Agarwal obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband, Mr. G. D. Agarwal. The circumstances of the ex parte decree are not relevant. It will reflect of the ultimate solution. So far, barring the matter relating to adoption, upon which the Court will consider subsequently, the marriage of Mr. S. P. Moitra was not being affected. Sharda Agarwal obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband, Mr. G. D. Agarwal. The circumstances of the ex parte decree are not relevant. It will reflect of the ultimate solution. So far, barring the matter relating to adoption, upon which the Court will consider subsequently, the marriage of Mr. S. P. Moitra was not being affected. But, the record shows that on 19 April, 1981 there was another ex parte decree and so it is claimed by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal, obtained at the instance of Manju Moitra involving the marriage between Mr. S. P. Moitra, and her. The most significant fact which became an issue on record is that Mrs. Manju Moitra asserts that she never filed any divorce petition against her husband and whosoever may have filed it, was a person who impersonated her. One aspect now becomes clear that some factor was wrecking the marriage of Mr. S. P. Moitra and Manju Moitra. 7. Somebody was entering into other people lives to disturb one marriage. It is claimed by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal that on 16 May 1982, he married Mrs. S.P. Moitra in a temple. The marriage was not registered. Mrs. S.P. Moitra is dead and cannot comment on the situation. The other aspect which cannot disengage the attention of the Court is, could such a marriage have taken place? 8. The Court had reservation on such a marriage because one year after this marriage Mrs. Sharda Agarwal was by a court decree being relieved of the matrimonial alliance with her husband, Mr. G.D. Agarwal and the order was to effect from the day when it was made. This order was of the District Judge, Kanpur, which recalled the ex parte decree obtained by Smt. Sharda Agarwal on 16 October, 1980 against her husband, Mr. G.D. Agarwal This ex parte decree was recalled, implying thereby that the marriage had continued until dissolved by the District Judge, Kanpur on 19 April, 1983. The marriage was dissolved mutually between the parties as they had put each other to terms. The terms by which the marriage was dissolved involved the child, Prantika Agarwal, who was to remain in custody with Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and the obligation to bring her up and maintain her was on the mother. Thus, Mr. G. D. Agarwal and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal separated on 19 April, 1983. The terms by which the marriage was dissolved involved the child, Prantika Agarwal, who was to remain in custody with Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and the obligation to bring her up and maintain her was on the mother. Thus, Mr. G. D. Agarwal and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal separated on 19 April, 1983. If this marriage had not been dissolved, what was the status of the marriage, as asserted between Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and Mr. S. P. Moitra on 16 May, 1982 ? Mr. S. P. Moitra is not alive to tell the story of the marriage which is claimed to have taken during the subsisting marriage of Mr. G. D. Agarwal, Mrs. Manju Moitra made a personal statement that she knew nothing of this marriage on 18 May, 1982 as till the last day of his life she and her husband were happily married and if there was any triangle, she only discovered it after the death of her husband, Mr. S. P. Moitra. 9. It is not for this Court toexpresson the morality of amorous adults asserting three marriages and there divorces, two ex parts but there are two minors involved. The sole exercise of this court under its writ jurisdiction is to put an end to the entire litigation in the court below so that the two children do into suffer the harassment of litigation in which nothing would have come out of nothing as the marriage had broken up in any case. 10. Between Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and her minor daughter, two writ petitions have been filed before this Court and are the subject-matter of consideration. 11. The first writ petition is No. 3491 of 1988, Mrs. Sharda Agarwal VIst, Additional District Judge and five others. The respondents are the minor, Somit Moitra aged about 6 years, Mrs. Manju Moitra, the minor Prantika Agarwal aged about, 10 years and Kanwar Dharam Pal Niyam, Advocate, who had been appointed a guardian and best friend of the minor Prantika Agarwal under Order (32) Rule4 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court. This writ petition was filed when the parties were virtually compromising the matter before the trial court to get out of each other's lives. One of the terms of the compromise was that there was a locker with a nationalised bank in the joint names of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and the late Mr. S.P. Moitra. This writ petition was filed when the parties were virtually compromising the matter before the trial court to get out of each other's lives. One of the terms of the compromise was that there was a locker with a nationalised bank in the joint names of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and the late Mr. S.P. Moitra. It is contended by the Mrs. Sharda Agarwal that initially the locker was in her name. The contents of the locker by a order of the Court below were to be opened in presence of an Advocate Commissioner. This was done. The ornaments were taken out by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal along with certain papers and a photograph of late Mr. S. P. Moitra was found in the locker, which was received by Mrs. Manju Moitra. With reference to the opening of the locker and the ornaments found in it, the advocate Commissioner gave details. The compromise evaded verification at the instance of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal. On a reaction Mrs. Manju Moitra on 30 October 1985 filed an application before the trial Court that directions be issued against Mrs. Sharda Agarwal to deposit the ornaments, which were delivered to her after the locker was opened. On 7 January 1987 the trial Court directed Mrs. Sharda Agarwal to deposit the articles which she received out of the locker with the Court. Instead of complying with the order of the trial Court she filed a revision No. 42 of 1987 before the District Judge, Kanpur. On 17 February 1988 the District Judge, aforesaid, dismissed the revision. Thus, the order of the District Judge as challenged by a writ petition, which lies pending as Writ Petition No. 3491 of 1988. The compromise was evaded by one party though goods were delivered upon a Court's order. What could be the relief which Mrs. Sharda Agarwal could receive from this Court. There could only be two directions (1) that she should conform with the order of the trial court and (2) return the ornaments and verify the compromise which she had agreed to sign, but did not do so. The compromise is the best solution between the parties to put an end to the dispute and it was for this purpose that this Court explored the possibilities. 12. The compromise is the best solution between the parties to put an end to the dispute and it was for this purpose that this Court explored the possibilities. 12. The facts which are hovering on the record would leave a reasonable man of ordinary prudence to ponder on a situation claimed by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal that Mr. S.P. Moitra may have had two wives, but Mr. S.P. Moitra is not alive to deny the assertions of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal. There are circumstances on record which lead the court to the conclusion that Mrs. Sharda Agarwal's claim that she married Mr. Moitra, issuspect. 13. Mrs. Manju Moitra filed a suit seeking a declaration from the Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to the effect that her son was the only child between her husband and her and that she is the wife and that she did not institute any proceedings which may have rested on an ex parte divorce against her husband. In so far as she is concerned, looking at the facts from her point of view she had no choice but to seek a declaration as (a) she was confronted with a situation that another woman's child was alleged to have been adopted by her husband and she knew nothing of it; (b) the credibility of her marriage was in question; (c) the legitimacy of her little son was suspect and (d) she was left with an allegation of having filed a suit against her husband for divorce, which she denied. This was the suit which was numbered as Suit No. 494 of 1986. Her minor son, Somit Moitra and she were the plaintiffs and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and her minor daughter were the defendants. It was filed approximately two months after her husband, Mr. S.P. Moitra died. 14. There is nothing on record of the proceedings which leaves the court with any impression that Mr. S.F. Moitra left a state of affairs to question his marriage with his wife, Mrs. Manju Moitra. These allegations sprang from the assertions made by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and denial by Mrs. Manju Moitra in defence:, 15. While the suit was pending, it was unfortunate that the record bears out that the minor Prantika Agarwal was facing a situation that her mother was placing on record that she will not (sic) the responsibility to represent her child. These allegations sprang from the assertions made by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and denial by Mrs. Manju Moitra in defence:, 15. While the suit was pending, it was unfortunate that the record bears out that the minor Prantika Agarwal was facing a situation that her mother was placing on record that she will not (sic) the responsibility to represent her child. This stand was net compatible with the compromise she sought with the husband in the divorce granted to her when the child was put under her charge and the obligation to bring up her child was upon her. 16. The trial court then took the logic of the law and utilising its powers under 0. XXXII, R. 4 appointed a guardian and best friend for the minor, in Mr. Dharam Pal Nigam, Advocate. This precipitated a s ituat ion that with both parents alive the child had a guardian. The guardian had his own interest rightly or wrongly. This minor child had a written statement filed on her behalf and the allegations which were made in defence in the written statement were adult, notwithstanding that the written statement was presented by a best friend and guardian. The Court can never lose sight of the fact that it was a child seven years old, who had filed the written statement and the defence would be read as a defence of the minor. 17. This child in the written statement came out with a statement that her mother (Sharda Agarwal) was not the wife of Mr. G.D. Agarwal and she was not the daughter born between the two of them and simultaneously saying that the (her) mother was the wife of Mr. S.P. Moitra and she was the daughter between Mr. S.P. Moitra and her mother. Such pleadings could only have been suggested to the minor. This child could not take a pleading reflecting on a state of affairs when she was either not born or not of an age to know what was happening. 18. In so far as the legitimacy of a child is concerned, the law says that a birth during marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy. Thus, this Court cannot accept a state of affairs rendering a status of illegitimacy on a child as every child born during the period of a marriage would be treated as born in wedlock. The law lends. Thus, this Court cannot accept a state of affairs rendering a status of illegitimacy on a child as every child born during the period of a marriage would be treated as born in wedlock. The law lends. itself in conferring a status of legitimacy upon children, not encouraging illegitimacy. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of "access" to each other between man and wife. Somit Moitra was born during wedlock and unless either of his parents, and no other can show beyond a reasonable doubt that hero she had no access to the other, no court can encourage such a plea which bargains with the legitimate status of a child. Encouraging such a plea would be against the law and public policy. The settled law is also to this effect, AIR 1971 SC 2352 , Perumal v. Ponnu Swami. 19. This was not an end of the pleadings in the written statement as it also reflects upon the legitimacy of another child Somit Moitra. This written statement states that there was a divorce between her mother and her father in 1981 when the record was presenting a state of affairs that a decree of divorce did not take place until 19 April 1983. The effect of the decree of divorce is relevant as any marriage which may have been claimed by Mrs. Sharda Agarwal prior to the date when the divorce took effect cannot be made an allegation to the detriment of the person whose marriage has been disturbed. The written statement even goes on to suggest an allegation at the instance of the minor that Mr. S.P. Moitra died as a result of collusion and casts an aspersion that Mrs. Manju M of tra, the co-plaintiff was responsible for it. Why should such pleadings be made in the written statement on behalf of a minor? The written statement even casts a doubt on the marriage between Mr. S.P. Moitra and Mrs. Manju Moitra. The written statement suggests that at the time of his death Mr. S.P. Moitra was not married to his wife. As if these allegations were not enough the assertion is made more emphatic when it suggests that "plaintiff is neither the wife nor Somit Moitra is the son of Mr. S.P. Moitra". Thus, it is clear that the issue in the suit would have been to the effect that Mrs. S.P. Moitra was not married to his wife. As if these allegations were not enough the assertion is made more emphatic when it suggests that "plaintiff is neither the wife nor Somit Moitra is the son of Mr. S.P. Moitra". Thus, it is clear that the issue in the suit would have been to the effect that Mrs. Manju Moitra was not the wife of late Mr. S.P. Moitra and the legitimacy of the child, Somit Moitra, was suspect. And, all these allegations are on behalf of a child, Prantika Agarwal, casting aspersions on a marriage with which she has nothing to do. These aspects were brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal. 20. The rest of the averments in the written statement are a claimer on the property of late Mr. S.P. Moitra. A counter claim was sought in the written statement of the minor, Prantika Agarwal. The plaintiff Mrs. Manju Moitra and her son Somit Moitra raised objections on the counter-claim in effect, that these can only be the subject matter of an independent suit and not proceedings which were before the Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The litigation was not ending by any means when the learned Civil Judge denied the counter-claim in the nature of expenses and cost amounting to Rs. 140/- by an order of 12 November, 1987. The best friend and guardian of the minor, Mr. Dharani Pal Nigam, Advocate, challenged this order in a revision before the District Judge that the claim of Rs. 140/- otherwise costs arising out of the counter-claim has been illegally denied. The guardian could not be persuaded to abandon the claim and he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 15210 of 1988. One of the main reliefs sought in the writ petition is that the order by which he was denied costs may be paid as expenses to the guardian by Mrs. Manju Moitra and her minor son Somit Moitra. While the guardian was seeking Rs. 140/-as expenses yet another litigation had already come in the offing as this writ petition. The array of parties shows that it has been moved on behalf of the minor Prantika Agarwal. Manju Moitra and her minor son Somit Moitra. While the guardian was seeking Rs. 140/-as expenses yet another litigation had already come in the offing as this writ petition. The array of parties shows that it has been moved on behalf of the minor Prantika Agarwal. It was in these circumstances that the Court on 30 November, 1988 became conscious of the fact, as from the, record - that with parents alive the child was in charge of a guardian and was being embroiled in litigation and in the interest of the minor and to find out a reason why a guardian had been appointed when her mother was alive, the record of Original Suit No. 494 of 1986 was summoned The order as passed on 30 November, 1988 is reproduced below:- "Before any other aspect in this matter could be examined one matter needs to be examined by the Court and is in reference to the fact that while the mother of the minor Km. Prantika Agarwal, is alive the child has been set in charge of a guardian, one Kunwar Dharampal Nigam, Advocate, by an order of the IV Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur. Counsel on behalf of the minor, aforesaid and of the respondent No. 3 could not enlighten the Court how a guardian has been appointed when her mother is alive. As long as this child has been in charge of a guardian appointed by a court she will embroiled in the litigations which are taking place between the respondents. In the interest of the minor and to find out the reason why a guardian has been appointed when her mother is alive it is appropriate that the record of Original Suit No. 494 of 1980 : Somit Moitrav. Smt. Sharda Agarwal pending before the IV Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur, be made available to this Court by a special messenger sent by the Registrar at the court's expenses. The record may be laid before t his Court on 9-12-1988. Let this order be placed before the Registrar for compliance. Also let the Registrar send intimation to the Court of IV Addl. Judge, Kanpur, aforesaid, that on the date the respondent No. 4, Smt. Sharda Agarwal, is to be present before the Court. List on 9-12-1988." 21. The record reveals that on 6 November, 1988 the mother, Mrs. Let this order be placed before the Registrar for compliance. Also let the Registrar send intimation to the Court of IV Addl. Judge, Kanpur, aforesaid, that on the date the respondent No. 4, Smt. Sharda Agarwal, is to be present before the Court. List on 9-12-1988." 21. The record reveals that on 6 November, 1988 the mother, Mrs. Sharda Agarwal was not inclined to act as natural guardian and it was on that day this Court set on record in itsorderof 16 December, 1988 : "The matter has been placed before the Court today in reference to the order passed on 30 November, 1988. The court had summoned the record of Original Suit No. 494 of 1986: Somit Moitra pending before IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur for purposes of finding out the matter relating to the child Miss. Prantika Agarwal aged about 10 years (as mentioned in the petition) and at present under a guardian one Mr. Kunwar Dharam Pal, Advocate, upon an order of IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The record of the original suit is before the Court. One aspect is not in issue that this child with her father and mother alive has a guardian appointed by the Court. The order on record of the lower court's order sheet dated 6-11-1986 explains the situation that the mother was not inclined to act as a natural guardian of tithe child. The Court appointed an Advocate to become a guardian on payment of a fee. While adults, parties to the writ petition, may be embroiled in their differences, with both father and mother alive the child apparently has to be conscious of the fact that in addition to natural parents she has an unnatural guardian. Before the Court examines the merits in the petition it would like to have at the Bar of this Court the father, the mother and the child. The father Sri G.D. Agarwal is not a party in the writ petition but neverthless father of the child. This Court directs the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur that he may indicate by notice to Mr. G. D. Agarwal, father of Miss. Prantika and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal mother that they shall be present in the court along with the child Miss. Prantika on 22 December, 1988. When this order was passed by this Court Mr. This Court directs the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur that he may indicate by notice to Mr. G. D. Agarwal, father of Miss. Prantika and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal mother that they shall be present in the court along with the child Miss. Prantika on 22 December, 1988. When this order was passed by this Court Mr. S.M. Dayal Advocate, was present and at the request of the Court he has volunteered to deliver the order of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, as he indicated that he was leaving for Kanpur in any case. The learned Civil Judge, aforesaid, may deliver to the persons aforesaid, notices as directed indicating that they be present in court on 22 December, 1988. A copy of this order may be given to Sri S.M. Dayal today, free of charge." 22. By that time the court was getting an impression that should parties be available before the court the issue would be resolved or at least the court not lose an opportunity in solving this wasteful and useless tangle between the parties. 23. On 13 and 14 February, 1989 all the parties were present in the Court, namely, Mrs. Manju Moitra with her minor son, Somit Moitra, Mrs. Sharda Agarwal with her minor daughter and Mr. G.D. Agarwal, otherwise not a party to any of the proceedings, but he responded to the direction of the court to he present. 24. Before commenting on the proceedings, the court is placing on record the grace shown by Mr. G.D. Agarwal to answer the summons of the court and to appear on the appointed day in person at his expense as he was conscious of the proceedings which had entangled his ex wife, another woman with a child and his child. He made no allegations against anybody and submitted before the court that after the divorce between him and Mrs. Sharda Agarwal had taken effect on 19 April, 1983 he was reconciling to the order of the court to find his peace of mind and reiterated that he has accepted whatever the terms of compromise were as a consequence of which the District Judge dissolved the marriage between him and his wife and the order took effect on the -date, aforesaid. He expressed no claim against any party no desire to be involved in the proceedings and further expressed that he had no desire to get involved in the litigation, which was pending and after making these submissions he departed. 25. On 13 February, 1989 Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and Mrs. Manju Moitra along with their counsel came before the court with the purpose that the time has come for them to settle their affairs as the litigations would get them nowhere. In this regard the approach of counsel has been co-operative as they were the first who were made to realise that should the litigation continue it w ill reap no fruit and ruin both the parties, financially and psychologically. 26. On the next date on 14 February, 1989 learned counsel were intimating the court that their clients had come to terms and they had instructions to intimate the court that the matter be considered on 16 February, 1989 so that terms upon which the parties may compromise may be placed on record. A little deliberation was required by the learned counsel for the parties on 25 February, 1989. Learned counsel were jointly requesting the court that the terms between the parties have been set and the matter be settled once and for all right before this Court and it would be in the interest of justice that it will be an end to the litigation as there will be nothing left to be decided in the court below at Kanpur. This aspect was fortunate as any compromise had to be voluntary and free and made the court's task easier to put an end to all litigation, by ending the proceedings in the suit. 27. The Court requested learned counsel for the parties that they may advise their clients to appear before the Registrar on a certain date so that as a measure of formality under Chapter II, Rule 1 (10) of the High Court Rules the Registrar could verify the compromise and satisfy himself as to the intention of the parties to enter into a, compromise and then report to the court. On the date agreed between the parties, on 3 March, 1989 the Registrar verified the compromise after the parties before him had been identified by their lawyers. Thereafter, the compromise had been placed before the Court for final orders. 28. On the date agreed between the parties, on 3 March, 1989 the Registrar verified the compromise after the parties before him had been identified by their lawyers. Thereafter, the compromise had been placed before the Court for final orders. 28. After the compromise had been verified, again counsel showed grace to ensure that there is no further litigation. When the comments of the written statement filed on behalf of the minor, Prantika Agarwal, were brought to the notice of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and Prantika Agarwal, Mr. M.C. Gupta, Advocate, sought indulgence of the Court to recheck the pleadings of the written statement. Thereafter learned counsel moved an application before the Court that it would be in the interest of that the written statement be treated as withdrawn and not on record. Learned counsel gave reasons why such an application has been moved under 0. 6, R 16 as the withdrawal of the written statement would remove the root cause of the cancer by which the parties had been at issue. This court has no hesitation on placing on record that it was a very appropriate step taken by learned counsel, aforesaid. 29. On the application, the court ordered that the written statement shall be treated as having been withdrawn. This left the suit without opposition. But rather than letting the suit be decreed the parties have chosen to compromise the issues between them right before this Court so that there w ill be nothing left to litigate-upon later. 30. Learned counsel. Learned counsel on behalf of Mrs. Manju Moitra drew the attention of the Court to one aspect relating to Prantika Agarwal having been adopted by Mr. S.P. Moitra. The submission was not opposed. The submission was to the effect that should there be an adoption as was alleged, it would lead to a ridiculous situation which cannot be reconciled with facts on record. Learned counsel on behalf of Mrs. Manju Moitra submitted that the so called adoption of Prantika Agarwal on 28 December 1979, cannot stand in law or facts. On this date both marriages were subsisting; between the Agarwal couple and the Moitra couple. Could the child be given in adoption by one married couple to another without the consent of the father? Could the adoption take effect? Manju Moitra submitted that the so called adoption of Prantika Agarwal on 28 December 1979, cannot stand in law or facts. On this date both marriages were subsisting; between the Agarwal couple and the Moitra couple. Could the child be given in adoption by one married couple to another without the consent of the father? Could the adoption take effect? It could only be under S. 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. There cannot be any unilateral adoption arranged by one parent giving a foster home to a child when both father and mother have not agreed to accept the child. Mr. S.P. Moitra is dead and his version will never come. But what is the worth of this adoption in a foster home when Mrs. Manju Moitra was never consulted on this novel but very personal family arrangement which could shatter her equilibrium and her privacy as a mother and wife. Then, four years after the so called adoption, in 1983 Shards Agarwal was having her marriage annulled with her husband Mr. G.D. Agarwal The decree of divorce made a. reference to this child Prantika, by putting her in the custody of Shards Agarwal with an obligation to bring her up. The logic of an adoption and the obligation to have custody of the child by a court order later does not hold. The Court can only proceed on the dictum : that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. *Sir Authur Conan Doyle : The sign of four The adoption was a farce. 31. Learned counsel for Mrs. Sharda Agarwal and minor Prantika Agarwal has made a submission that as the written statement had been recalled the proposition is being accepted as the plaint stands. 32. Thus, the circumstances as are on record today and accepted between the parties are that Mrs. Manju Moitra was married to Mr. S. P. Moitra, who died and between them there was a son Somit Moitra. Mrs. Sharda Agarwal, a divorcie is under an obligation under the decree of divorce to take charge of the minor child Prantika Agarwal and in these circumstances there is no occasion that a best friend or a guardian must continue to remain to look after Prantika Agarwal. After the compromise has been entered into there is nothing left in the suit to be decided. Mr. After the compromise has been entered into there is nothing left in the suit to be decided. Mr. Dharam Pal Nigam,. Advocate, a best friend and guardian appointed by the court below is relieved of the obligation to represent the minor Prantika Agarwal The compromise has been entered into and verified before the Registrar on 3 March 1988 and now there is no issue to be decided by the trial court nor any written statement is on record, upon its withdrawal to deny the averments made in the plaint. 33. Let the declaration sought be granted by the trial court in terms of the compromise which has been verified by the Registrar of this Court on 3 March 1988. The parties have already agreed that the cost will be upon them and such shall be the order by the trial court upon costs. The record of Original Suit No. 494 of 1986 be returned by a special massenger along with a certified copy of this judgment and the compromise which has been verified by the Registrar on 3 March 1989. 34. Now, there is no issue in the writ petition or the suit, aforesaid, which has been pending. The matter has been compromised between the parties. In these circumstances the record of this writ petition, upon its dismissal is consigned to record as the case is decided in terms of the compromise. There will be no order on costs.