IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1899 of 2007 JAI PRAKASH SAO @ JAI PRAKASH PRASAD Versus MEENA DEVI ----------- 2 29.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the application filed by the petitioner before the Court below for adducing further evidence including examination of his wife was itself misconceived. It would appear from the records that the wife opposite party had filed a maintenance case being Misc. Case No. 15/99 in which an order granting maintenance in her favour was passed on 20.6.2002. The petitioner, husband claims that after the said order was passed by the Court below on 20.6.2002, both petitioner and his wife had entered into a compromise on 22.8.2003 and therefore, when the petitioner had already assailed an order dated 20.6.2002 before this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing a Cr. Misc. No. 27102 of 2002, the wife having appeared in that case could not have gone back from the said agreement and therefore even if this Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by an order dated 29.1.2007 recorded in Misc. No. 27102/2002 affirming the grant of maintenance in 2 favour of the wife by an order dated 20.6.2002, it was still open for the petitioner to press his application for examining the wife as with regard to her alleged stand on the issue of compromise for the purposes of review/recall or the order dated 20.06.2002. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below had nothing to do after its order dated 20.06.2002 had already been affirmed by this Court vide an order dated 29.1.2007 noting therein that the wife had not accepted the compromise. The petitioner if at all he was really aggrieved by the conduct of his wife resiling from the said agreement/compromise, he had to only satisfy this Court or take recourse before this Court, but that having been not done and the order dated 29.1.2007 having been passed by this Court affirming the order of the Court below dated 20.6.2002 with regard to the grant of maintenance in favour of the wife, the same could not have been reopened much less reviewed by the Court below on any ground whatsoever. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)