The Delhi high court has quashed criminal proceedings pertaining to dowry harassment against a man after he agreed to pay Rs 1,000 per month for welfare of his son living separately with his mother.

Justice Suresh Kait also asked the man and his parents to deposit Rs 15,000 in favour of the four-year-old son.

The court allowed the man's plea seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him and his family members for criminal breach of trust and harassing his wife for dowry, with the Welcome Police Station here in 2009.

It quashed the FIR, after the man's wife submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between them. She told the court that her husband has also agreed to pay Rs 1,000 per month to their son for his welfare, so she was no more interested in pursing the case.

The woman, a resident of East Delhi, also told the court that she has no objection, if the FIR and other proceedings against her husband and in-laws are quashed.

She had registered an FIR against her husband and in-laws alleging that they used to demand money and other articles from her and use to beat her.

She informed the court that since the pendency of the case, she along with her son was living separately.

"On our mutual consent with each other, we have decided to live separately, which was also settled by receiving Rs 90,000 towards full and final settlement of the dispute in January 2012," the woman's counsel said.

"Keeping in view the above discussion and the statement of respondent no. 2 (woman), in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR registered at Welcome Police Station and all the proceedings," Justice Kait said. . 

The high court also said if the man failed to pay Rs 1,000 per month to his son even for once, he shall be liable for contempt proceedings.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution told the court that charge sheet has been filed in the case and the charges are yet to be framed.

Prosecution said if the court was inclined to quash the FIR, it should impose a heavy cost on the man and his family members as they have consumed its "precious time".

Agreeing with the prosecution, Justice Kait said, "I direct petitioner no.1, 4 and 5 (man and his parents) to pay Rs 5,000 each, in favour of son of the man and the woman".

The court also asked the woman to keep the amount (of her son) in fixed deposit for five years, which shall be renewed periodically so that maturity amount shall be utilised for the welfare of the child.