ORDER : 1. The marriage was solemnized on 08.3.1998 inter se the parties according to Muslim rights and appellant No.2 is the child born out of the wedlock. 2. In the then prevalent norms, through the method of triple talaq, divorce was given on 23.4.2005. The appellants filed proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The Family Court accepted the application of appellant No.1- wife under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) but not under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant No.1- son till he attained majority and future maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/-. The High Court granted an interim relief in the cross revision petitions filed and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- pending consideration. 3. The High Court finally passed Order dated 28.7.2010 opining that the jurisdiction would not vest with the Family Court and giving them liberty to take out proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was permitted to be retained subject to the final outcome of those proceedings. 4. The appellant No.1-wife assailed that order by filing present special leave petition. Leave was granted but there was diverse opinions of the two learned judges on this very aspect as to whether the Family Court could have entertained the claim for maintenance or the matter has to be relegated under the Act. That is how the matter has been placed before a larger bench. 5. The subsequent development is that the proceeding under Sections 3 & 4 of the 1986 Act were taken out by the appellant in the meantime but that claim was rejected on 06.7.2019 and appeal is stated to be pending before the Sessions Court being appeal No.526/2019 which has not seen the light of the day as yet. 6. There are other proceedings also pending inter se the parties before the High Court and one would have thought that litigation fatigue ought to have set in by now for both the parties to take a reasonable stand to put a quietus to the whole dispute. We, thus, gave an opportunity to the learned counsel for the respondent to have consultation with respondent whether a quietus could be put to the whole dispute. We, thus, gave an opportunity to the learned counsel for the respondent to have consultation with respondent whether a quietus could be put to the whole dispute. The response of the learned counsel for the respondent however is based on what is already stated in the written synopsis towards the end i.e. a quietus can be put against the amount awarded by Family Court of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- having been paid, the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is further enhanced by Rs.3,00,000/- to come to Rs.5,00,000/-. However, we feel that amount is too low for a settlement and if the respondent was serious in this endeavour, the amount has to be substantively more so that the returns from the same can meet the requirements of appellant No.1. We are told that appellant No.2 has now completed his engineering. We can still hope that at some stage better sense prevail over the parties and they can agree over an acceptable amount. 7. In view of the fact that the appellant has already availed of the alternative remedy in terms of the impugned judgment, that having been rejected and is pending in appeal, we are of the view that there is no point to now seek to answer the reference before us. We, however, are of the view that an arrangement must be made for the appellants pending consideration on the appeal and we thus consider it appropriate to grant maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month commencing from 01.01.2022. The amount shall be paid in advance by the seventh of each month and the first such payment shall start on or before 07th October, 2022. 8. Insofar as the arrears for the nine months are concerned, at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, which would be Rs.1,80,000/-, the amount be remitted to the appellants by the respondent within a period of three months from today. 9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving parties to bear their own costs. 10. In case the parties are willing to settle for a lumpsum amount and all proceedings being brought to an end, we give liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court for modification of the order passed by us today.