IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1902 of 2007 KIRAN DEVI Versus NAGA SAH @ NAGO SAH & ORS ----------- 8 17.12.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 14.11.2008. Pursuant thereto, both the petitioner Kiran Devi and the opposite party Naga Sah @ Nago Sah have appeared in person. The first part of the submission of the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioner had not filed this case before this Court is found to be now incorrect inasmuch as the wife- petitioner in presence of the counsel for the parties as also her husband has asserted that this application before this Court has been filed by her. Therefore, no credence can be given to the alleged statement of the petitioner given in some criminal trial. Accordingly, this application is held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties is hereby rejected. This Court in order to now ascertain the correctness of the views recorded in the impugned order had made a query from both the husband and wife as to 2 why it was not possible for both of them to live together. While the husband-opposite party had readily agreed and infact had offered the wife to live together and for that purpose, he had assured this Court that he would keep the wife-petitioner with all dignity, the wife- petitioner on a plea of threat to her own life at the instance of the husband-opposite party, has blankly refused to live with her husband-opposite party. In that view of the matter, no gainful purpose will be served in making any effort for settlement between the parties. At this stage, both the parties have agreed that they are prepared for mutual divorce. If that be so, they may file a joint application for mutual in terms of Section 13 (i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, such an application for mutual divorce is filed by the petitioner, the same will not be opposed by either party and all possible steps will be taken by both the parties to ensure that the mutual divorce is granted to them within the specified shortest possible limit as prescribed in the statute i.e. a period of six months from the date of presentation of such application for mutual divorce. Let it be made clear that the petitioner in 3 presence of her counsel has submitted that she does not require any monetary assistance either for the present period or as a condition precedent for grant of mutual divorce. Therefore, there would be no question of grant of permanent alimony at the time of grant of mutual divorce to the petitioner under the order of the Family Court. In the light of findings recorded above, there would be no need to adjudicate the correctness and legality of the impugned order refusing payment of interim maintenance to the wife petitioner by the husband-opposite party and accordingly this Civil Revision Application must be held to have become infructuous due to hardened and stubborn attitude of the wife-petitioner. With the aforementioned observations/directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)