IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2756 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar, Son of Muni Lal Rai, Resident of Mohalla Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Jakkanpur, District Patna. -------- Applicant-Petitioner Versus 1. Anju @ Anamika Rai, Daughter of Balram Prasad Yadav and wife of Sanjay Kumar. 2. Balram Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Ramprit Yadav. 3. Jayanti Devi, Wife of Balram Prasad Yadav. Al are resident of Mohalla Musallahpur Mahavir Asthan, Yadav Lane, Lohargali, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. ------- Oppsoite Parties-Opposite Parties ----------- 4 31.03.2010 Heard Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nilima Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties. In this application, a prayer has been made for re-hearing of the civil revision application in terms of the liberty given in the order dated 3.12.2008. Let it be noted that the said civil revision application was finally disposed of by this Court on certain understanding between the parties, which would be evident from the text of the order quoted hereinbelow:- “After some sort of deliberation between them, it has been conveyed to this Court that there is every possibility of a settlement in the matrimonial dispute. The husband, an employee in the Indian Air Force posted at Amritsar, assures this Court that if the wife, presently a Research scholar in the 2 Department of History of Patna University and residing with her parents, would be prepared to live together, he will restore the conjugal right without any hesitation. He further assures that he will treat his wife with all dignity whenever and wherever she lives with him (petitioner). An equally reassuring statement has been given by the wife who also has undertaken to restore her relationship with the husband- petitioner. She is of the view that if proper love and affection is given to her by the petitioner- husband, she will also do every thing as is expected of any respectable wife. Normally, after recording such clear views approaching to a settlement it was not difficult for this Court to dispose of this case with a direction to both the husband and wife to start living together even if the petitioner- husband is posted at Amritsar while serving in Indian Air Force and the wife is pursuing her academic career by undertaking a research work for her Ph..D decree. The wife in that case could have accompanied for living together at Amritsar being the place of posting of the petitioner her husband. However, the wife-opposite party informs this Court that the only issue being a son aged about one year is seriously ailing from suspected disease of jaundice and his present S.G.P.T. level is very high which would not permit him to travel to Amritsar. In such a situation, the wife- opposite party submits that she will accompany her husband from the month of March, 2009 by which time she expects that not only her son would recover but even she would be able to make some sort of arrangement for pursuing her academic career. The petitioner-husband has to leave Amritsar on 10th of December, 2008 as his leave is coming to an end on that day. In such a situation, when the parties have shown their inclination to restore their relationship, this Court would give liberty to both the husband and wife to stay together in period of this one week and even thereafter if the circumstances so permit. As the son of the petitioner is sick and is being looked after by the parents of the wife, it would 3 be advisable for the present that the husband-petitioner should stay with his wife at the place of his father-in-law where the wife is presently stationed with her son. This would not only enable the husband petitioner to share the concern of his ailing son but also restore faith and confidence of the wife- opposite party in the petitioner husband for the future course of action for their living together. In view of the fact that the wife-opposite party has undertaken before this Court that she will start residing with the husband-petitioner regularly with effect from March, 2009 when the husband-petitioner will come and take her along with him to his place of posting at Amritsar, this Court would direct that the order passed by the Court below will be continued to be complied by the petitioner till the month of March 2009. In the event, the wife-opposite party does not accompany with her husband even in the month of March, 2009 when the husband-petitioner will visit Patna in course of his leave, her payment of maintenance as directed in the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance from April 2009 onwards till further order either by this Court or by the concerned family court. In the event the husband and wife have a peaceful conjugal life for a period of one year i.e. upto March 2010, they will withdraw all pending civil and criminal cases filed against each other and their family members. Liberty is also given to both the parties to file any miscellaneous case before this court for revival of the present civil revision application. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of.” The application has been filed by the petitioner taking a plea that despite best of the efforts made by him, the wife opposite party no.1 did not choose to accompany the petitioner husband to his place of posting and 4 as such, the riders imposed in the said order should be made free for both the parties to take recourse to their future course of action. Mrs. Sinha has tried to explain the circumstances in which the wife opposite party no.1 could not join with her husband to the place of his posting but then that would not be really material for the purpose this case as it would be clear from the tenor of the order of this Court dated 3.12.2008 that such an arrangement was made on the amicable settlement between the parties and if one of them does not want to carry the terms and conditions of the said settlement, the law will definitely take its own course. In that view of the matter, the civil revision application filed by the petitioner needs to be re-heard after recalling the order dated 3.12.2008 in C.R. No. 1223 of 2008. This application is accordingly allowed and the order dated 3.12.2008 in C.R. No. 1223 of 2008 passed by this Court is recalled. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)