JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband, Pankaj Kumar, against respondent/wife, Smt. Yashoda, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.09.2006, by which the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, in an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directed payment of monthly maintenance amount to the respondent/wife. The operative portion of the order impugned is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^vr% izkFkhZ;k Jherh ;'kksnk dh vksj ls foi{kh iadt dqekj ds fo:) izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 25 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og izkFkhZ;k dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh fnukad 21-03-2005 ls :å 1500@& izfrekg crkSj LFkkbZ fuokZg HkRrk vnk djsA foi{kh dks ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og izkFkhZ;k dks dk;Zokgh O;; ds fy;s :å 1500@& vnk djsA izkFkhZ;k foi{kh ls LFkkbZ fuokZg HkRrk dh jkf'k thoui;ZUr izkIr djrh jgsxhA izkFkhZ }kjk nwljk fookg dj ysus dh fLFkfr esa nwljk fookg djus dh fnukad ds i'pkr~ ls izkFkhZ;k foi{kh ls LFkkbZ fuokZg HkRrk dh jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gksxhA vkns'k vkt fnukad 14-09-2006 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kok;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA ,lMh@& mn;pUn ck:iky ftyk U;k;k/kh'k HkhyokM+k jktå** 2. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that decree of divorce by mutual consent was already granted by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, in application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Case No. 132/2003-Yashoda v. Pankaj Kumar on 24.02.2005; and at that time, it was agreed between the parties that there was no monetary due remained about the maintenance between the parties. The said order dated 24.02.2005 under Section 13-B of the Act is also quoted herein below for ready reference :- ^^ifj.kkeLo:i ;g izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkfFkZ;k Jherh ;'kksnk iRuh iadt dqekj ukbZ fuoklh ek.Myx<+ o foi{kh laå 1 iadt dqekj i= ukjk;.k yky ykbZ fuå gjukFkiqjk ¼dkph[ksM+k½ rglhy jk'kuh ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ ds e/; xzke ek.Myx<+ esa fnukad 04-05-1992 dks lEiUu gq, fookg dks ijLij lgefr ds vk/kkj ij fo?kfVr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkjku vkt fnukad 24-02-2005 ls ifr] iRuh jgs gSA i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fuokZg jkf'k vFkok ysunsu cdk;k ugha gksxk izdV gqvk gS vr% bl laca/k esa dksbZ vkns'k fn;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA izkFkZuk i= dk [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djsaA fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA ,lMh@& tsåihå 'kekZ ftyk U;k;k/kh'k HkhyokM+k** 3. In the present appeal on 27.01.2016, the following order was passed by this Court for exploring the possibility of mutual settlement of the dispute between the parties in the present case under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the respondent/wife, Smt. Yashoka despite the previous order dated 24.02.2005 indicating therein that learned District Judge has granted divorce decree by mutual consent and noted that no money was due thereunder, still a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as permanent alimony was indicated to be paid by the appellant, Pankaj Kumar, to the respondent, Smt. Yashoda. The order dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court reads as under :- "Both the learned counsels for the parties may take instructions in the present matter, as to whether, by payment of a lumpsum amount, the impugned order under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act directing the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent-wife, can be affirmed and the present matrimonial dispute in this appeal can be put to an end. Since, the appellant-husband (Sic has) remarried and the divorce decree under Section 13(B) of the H.M. Act has already been granted by the concerned Family Court, the only aspect of payment of permanent alimony that was not considered by the learned Family Court concerned, is the subject matter of the present Misc. Appeal. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the aspect of payment of permanent alimony was not considered by the learned Family Court concerned and, therefore, the learned Court below has not erred in directing the appellant-husband to pay Rs. Appeal. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the aspect of payment of permanent alimony was not considered by the learned Family Court concerned and, therefore, the learned Court below has not erred in directing the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month. This observation is also, of course, subject to the further arguments, if any. However, time prayed for is allowed to the learned counsels for updating their instructions in the matter, for permanent alimony in the lump-sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to be paid by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. List the matter on 03.02.2016, as prayed." 4. Since, appellant Pankaj Kumar was not present before the Court on 27.01.2016, for ensuring his presence, vide order dated 03.02.2016 bailable warrants were issued for his presence on 12.02.2016. The interim orders dated 03.02.2016 and 12.02.2016 are also quoted herein below :- "Order dated 03.02.2016 In pursuance of the previous Court's order dated 27.01.2016, the respondent-wife-Smt. Yashoda is present-in-person before the Court but the appellant-husband-Pankaj Kumar is not present. The suggestion which given on the last occasion, i.e., 27.01.2016, was that so far as the appellant-husband-Pankaj Kumar since re-married and the other developments, the present matrimonial dispute can be resolved by payment of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) towards permanent alimony. The learned counsel, Dr. Sachin Acharya, upon instructions of the respondent-wife submitted that the amount of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- is also not being paid by the appellant-respondent for last so many years to the respondent-wife. In view of the fact that the appellant-husband Pankaj Kumar is not present today before this Court, no effective order can be passed. The learned counsel, Mr. Manish Shishodia, appearing for the appellant-husband submitted that he has not been able to contact the appellant except sending a letter at the address, as given in the cause title of this appeal. However, the learned counsel assures the Court that he will keep the appellant-husband-Pankaj Kumar present before this Court on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 12.02.2016, as prayed." Order dated 12.02.2016 The appellant/husband is not present despite the directions of this Court issued on 03.02.2016. However, the learned counsel assures the Court that he will keep the appellant-husband-Pankaj Kumar present before this Court on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 12.02.2016, as prayed." Order dated 12.02.2016 The appellant/husband is not present despite the directions of this Court issued on 03.02.2016. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband informed that Court the appellant/husband is out of station and, therefore, could not be contacted even though his father could be contacted, who informed that his son (appellant) is out of station. Respondent, Smt. Yashoda, was present on previous occasion i.e. on 03.02.2016 also and today she is again present along-with her brother and she came down from Mandalgarh, Bhilwara. This Court is of the opinion that the appellant is avoiding compliance of direction of this Court and is not present before this Court. Therefore, let bailable warrant for a sum of Rs. 5000/- be issued for securing the presence of appellant, Pankaj Kumar, before this Court on 01.03.2016. If, however, the appellant wants to abide by the suggestion given on earlier occasion on 03.02.2016 to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the permanent alimony, to which the respondent/wife was agreeable to accept said amount, the appellant may pay said amount and besides to that the appellant/husband shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/wife for not presenting before this Court today and respondent unnecessarily made to come again. List the case on 01.03.2016." 5. Today, both the parties are present along with their counsels and they have also signed the order sheet in token of their acceptance of the aforesaid terms of the mutual settlement of the dispute by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 320/2016 dated 01.03.2016, the said application is also being disposed of by this Court today. The appellant/husband has brought cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- and has paid the same to respondent, Smt. Yashoda, which has been accepted by her in full and final settlement of the case and both the parties have signed the order sheet in token of acceptance of aforesaid sum of Rupee One lac and her brother (Sh. Rajendra Sain) is also present, who has also signed the order sheet. 6. In view of above settlement, the present misc. appeal as well as application (IA No. 320/16) are disposed of and the cost of Rs. Rajendra Sain) is also present, who has also signed the order sheet. 6. In view of above settlement, the present misc. appeal as well as application (IA No. 320/16) are disposed of and the cost of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be paid on the last occasion vide order dated 12.02.2016, is made easy in view of the aforesaid full and final payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent discharging the appellant-husband, Pankaj Kumar for any such past and future liability of maintenance towards respondent Smt. Yashoda and the order impugned dated 14.09.2006 is accordingly, modified. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the court below forthwith.