JUDGMENT Quashing of FIR No.464/2014 under Section 323/325/341/354(B)/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner-husband has already paid maintenance of about Rs.5 lac odd till the time of settlement and the mediated settlement has been acted upon and other litigation between the parties has already come to an end. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2 present in the Court is identified to be the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question. Respondent No.2 submits that at the time of settlement, petitioner had orally agreed to pay sum of Rs.30 lac in lieu of permanent alimony as petitioner was a housewife and after the divorce, she has no means to survive and is totally dependent upon her parents. Respondent No.2 submits that at the time of settlement, petitioner had taken her in confidence by telling her that for income-tax purpose, the amount of settlement is not being disclosed and this amount would be certainly paid but no amount has been paid to her except the maintenance amount over the period of time. Respondent No.2 submits that if petitioner is ready to honour assurance of paying Rs.30 lac then she is willing to get the FIR in question quashed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had placed reliance upon decisions reported in Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors 2014 (13) SCALE 729, Jaibir & Ors. v. State & Anr. 2007 (2) JCC 1352 and Anshu Soni v. State 2013(1) JCC 101 to submit that once settlement has been arrived at between the parties then the settlement must be given effect to and neither side should be allowed to wriggle out of it. Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case, mediated settlement, decisions cited and material on record, I do find that mediated settlements are required to be given effect to but when the mediated settlements do not take into account the important component that is permanent alimony, then the Court cannot be moot spectator and has to step in to ensure that lady without means is provided permanent alimony after the relations of husband and wife are severed. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by petitioners’ counsel do not advance the case of petitioners because even during the course of hearing, petitioners had not come forward to offer any decent amount towards permanent alimony. In such a situation, this Court is constrained not to act upon the mediated settlement and to decline quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of mediated settlement. With aforesaid observations, this petition and application are dismissed while not commenting upon merits of this case.