IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1231 of 2008 ----------- Prabha Chaturbedi, wife of Ramesh Chandra Chaturbedi, daughter of late Gauri Shankar Ojha, through her mother and next friend namely Bhagyamani Devi, resident of Quarter No. C/28, Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna, presently residing at Quarter No. B/154, Peoples Co-operative Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna. …Petitioner-Petitioner. versus Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi, son of late Hira Pd. Chatruvedi, Resident of Quarter No. C/28, At +P.O.+P.S. Patrkar Nagar, District Patna. ….Opposite Party-Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party: M/s R. K. Srivastava and Diwakar Dwivedi, Advocates. -------- . 06/ 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by applicant- petitioner challenging order 22.05.2008, by which learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna disposed of Maintenance Case No. 8(M) of 2007 as reconciliation had already taken place. 3. The aforesaid maintenance case was filed by the petitioner for maintenance from her husband-opposite party claiming that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1977 at Patna and they had a son but subsequently due to cruel treatment at the hands of the husband, the petitioner lost her mental balance and is leading a secluded life with her mother at her residence. 2 4.After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the said maintenance case continued and vide order dated 22.04.2008 it was found that the petitioner wanted to live with her husband- opposite party and the opposite party was also ready to keep his wife, namely, the petitioner with him with respect and without any ill-treatment and if the said conciliation fails, she might approach the court for which 09.05.2008 was fixed for their further appearance in the court and on that day mother and sister of the petitioner was also to be present. However, on 09.05.2008 both the parties along with mother and sister of the petitioner were directed to be personally present on 22.05.2008. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party had filed on 02.05.2008 in the court below, to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 22.05.2008, but from the order dated 22.05.2008 it is quite apparent that neither the said rejoinder was filed before the court while the case was being heard nor the said petition or its rejoinder was ever pressed before the court for consideration. 6. In the said circumstances, there being no grievance raised by any of the parties before the court below as directed earlier, the court below was quite justified in holding that since the matter has already been settled and was disposed of on reconciliation on 22.05.2008, there was no requirement to keep the said case pending and, accordingly, the case was disposed of. As a 3 further precaution, the learned court below observed that if in future any party may have any grievance against the otherside, then he/she may file a fresh case for maintenance. 7. The said order dated 22.05.2008 has been challenged by the petitioner in this court raising a lot of allegations against the opposite party. However, if there was any subsequent grievance, the learned court below vide its impugned order has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh case for maintenance and on that score there was no ground to challenge the order. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh case for maintenance in the court below, if she is aggrieved by any act of the petitioner. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )