IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1692 of 2006 PRAFULLA KUMAR SINHA @ PRAFUL Versus PRACHI & ORS ----------- 5 14.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. After some arguments, Counsel for the petitioner would seek permission to withdraw this application. Considering fate and future of the children which has been at least tried to be saved by the Court below by passing the impugned order in terms of maintenance till the adjudication of this case under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court would allow the petitioner to withdraw this application but he must ensure that the arrears and current amount under the impugned order must be paid by him in two equal two monthly installments promptly and positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Counsel for the petitioner next contends that this Court may direct the Court below to conclude the proceedings itself at an early date. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party however has drawn attention of this Court towards the 2 fact that it is the petitioner who has been delaying since 2002 when the evidence were already closed on behalf of the opposite party. If that be so, it is the petitioner who has to blame himself for delay in disposal of the case in the court below. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner appears and cooperates in pending proceedings in the Court below by producing his evidence, the Court below may take expeditious steps to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the petitioner in person and specifying the manner in which he would like to proceed in the matter. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)