IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23331 of 2010 SURESH SAHNI, Son of Bhuttu Sahni, resident of village-Bharat Nagar Malahtoli, P.S.- Venibad, District-Muzaffarpur….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Radha Devi, W/O Suresh Sahni, resident of Village- Bharat Nagar Malahtoli, P.S.- Venibad, District- Muzaffarpur, D/O Sogarath Sahni, resident of village- Rasalpur Bagahla, P.S. Charkrameshi, District-Samastipur………..Complainant- Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 27.09.10. Though the matter has been listed in pursuance to the order dated 02.08.2010 under the heading “To be mentioned” since the office note dated 24.09.2010 suggests that the notice issued to opposite party no.2 has not been validly served but learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has stated that he has already entered appearance and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. In pursuance to the order dated 02.08.2010, both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are in appearance. The petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party no.2 as wife with full dignity and honour but opposite party no.2 is not willing to go to the husband’s house due to certain apprehensions. There are two children out of wedlock. The petitioner i.e. the husband is ready 2 to pay Rs. 800/- per month to opposite party no.2. The said amount will be deposited in Ist week of every month from October,2010 in the account of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 will supply the account number to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. The aforesaid payment by the petitioner will be subject to any order passed in matrimonial or maintenance proceedings. In view of the aforesaid submissions, let the petitioner, Suresh Sahni, be released on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with complaint case no. 426 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Samastipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P. C. In eventuality of default in making payment by the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 will be entitled to file an appropriate application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehensive that 3 opposite party no.2 has performed second marriage which has specifically been denied by opposite party no.2 personally. If it is found that opposite party no.2 has performed second marriage then she will not be entitled to receive any payment from the petitioner. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)