The court may facilitate an amicable settlement through mediation to modify the quantum of maintenance/pension awarded by a tribunal, provided there is mutual consent between the parties.

Order

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 has been preferred by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:

“1. This writ petition may kindly be allowed with the costs, and by way of writ, order and directions, the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2023 (annex.7) passed in Original Application No.38/2017 (Smt. Suman Kanwar Vs. Union of India & Ors.) by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to make payment of arrears of pension with the pension and pension benefits with interest to the petitioner, in compliance of the judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed in Original Application No.301/2017 (Ex. Hav. Shyam Singh Rathore Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. This Court, with a view to facilitate an amicable resolution in the best interest of all parties concerned, had earlier passed the following order on 12.01.2026:

“1. This Court, in order to arrive at an amicable settlement in the best interest of the parties, passed the following order with the consensus of the lawyers representing both sides, on 12.01.2026:

“1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 23.06.2001 and took premature retirement on 17.11.2016. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in a strained matrimonial relationship with his wife and their two sons. The respondent-wife was receiving maintenance through the Army authorities. Certain disputes and differences, however, continued between the parties.

2. The Original Application was decided by the learned Tribunal on 03.02.2023, whereby the petitioner was held to have been lawfully discharged from service and declared entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. The learned Tribunal further granted relief by directing that 50% of the pension and pensionary benefits be paid to respondent No. 5, the estranged wife of the petitioner, along with their two sons.

3. Two Original Applications were filed: one relating to the legality of discharge and the other concerning maintenance. Original Application No. 37, pertaining to the discharge, stands concluded and is no longer in dispute, as the discharge has been upheld. The present controversy is confined solely to Original Application No. 38, whereby 50% of the pension and pensionary benefits were awarded in favour of respondent No. 5. The said direction is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted on the previous date that the pensionary benefits would have been released in terms of the Tribunal’s award had the same not been subjected to challenge under this writ petition and the award was accepted. It was further submitted that the disbursement of pension and pensionary benefits had been withheld solely on account of the subsisting dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 with respect to the manner of their distribution.

5. In view of the nature of the dispute, this Court deemed it appropriate to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement and, accordingly, invoked the process of mediation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jog Singh Bhati, and learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Dr. Harish Purohit, were requested to facilitate mediation between the parties with a view to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement concerning maintenance, so as to ensure smooth and effective disbursement of pensionary benefits.

6. Today, the mediation has been successful. On instructions, learned counsel fo