1 2025:CGHC:32689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 184 of 2023  Renuka Das S/o Lakshmi Das Madhukar Aged About 42 Years (At Present 46 Years) Caste Satnami, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Keshdabri, Tahsil Berla, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Budhvantin Bai W/o Shri Renuka Das Aged About 37 Years (At Present 41 Years) Caste Satnami, Occupation Nothing, R/o Village Karchuwa, Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhanu Das S/o Renuka Das Madhukar Aged About 12 Years (At Present 16 Years) Minor, Guardian Mother Budhvantin Bai W/o Renuka Das Madhukar, Aged About 41 Years, Caste Satnami, Occupation Nothing, R/o Village Karchuwa, Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 2 (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pay permanent alimony to respondents once for ever i.e. one acre agricultural land, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bemetara in Case No. 63/2007 on application moved by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs. 2,500/- per-month as maintenance to respondents. He further submits that financial condition of petitioner is not so good and is unable to make payment of Rs. 2,500/- per-month to respondents. He contends that petitioner is ready to transfer one acre of land as permanent alimony, therefore, a direction may be issued in this regard. 3) Heard Mr. Verma at length and perused the documents placed on record. 4) It appears that an order was passed by the learned Family Court in Case No. 63/2007 on 07.07.2009 whereby petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs. 2,500 per-month as maintenance to respondents. Admittedly, petitioner has not complied with that order and instead filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to enter into settlement. It is well settled principle of law that parties cannot be compelled by the Courts to enter into a settlement. If the petitioner wants to settle the dispute, he may approach the respondents and take suitable steps in this regard 3 and no such direction can be issued by this Court. 5) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.15 13:14:59 +0530