IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2054 of 2009 SANGEETA SRIVASTAVA, w/o Vijay Kumar Srivastava, resident of village- Nahmada Noniadih, P. O. & P. S.- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur, and Power House Colony, Bihar State Electricity Board, Forbesganj, District- Araria. … Applicant/ Petitioner Versus VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJAY KR.SRIVASTAVA, s/o Late Jata Shankar Prasad, resident of village- Nahmada Noniadih, P. O. & P. S. Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur, and Power House Colony, Bihar State Electricity Board, Forbesganj, District- Araria. … Respondent/Opposite party with MJC No.59 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, aged about 39 years, son of late Jata Shankar Prasad, resident of Power House Colony, Bihar State Electricity Board, Farbisganj, Post Office and Police Station- Farbisganj, District-Araria. … Petitioner. Versus SANGEETA SRIVASTAV, wife of Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Srivastava, resident of village- Mahmada Noniadih, Post Office and Police Station- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur, at present residing at Village Bariyarpur, Post Office- Sirsiya Buzrug via Kalwari, Police Station- Kathi, District- Muzaffarpur. … Opposite party. ----------- 3. 27.01.2010 Both these applications have been filed for certain modification/clarification in the order of this Court dated 3.12.2008 passed in Civil Revision No.1620 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 1885 of 2008. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best effort made by husband- petitioner Vijay Kumar, the wife Sangeeta Srivastava had created a situation in which the order of this court could not be complied by the parties in letter and 2 spirit. He would therefore submit that there should be one more effort by this Court to bring the matter for reconciliation between the parties. Counsel appearing on behalf of wife, Sangeeta Srivastava would submit that the wife was subjected to certain torture in the period she was living with husband pursuant to the order of this Court. Such submission is however, objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that everything was going smoothly for a period of six months but all of a sudden such hostile attitude was shown by the wife only when she was on way to the Court for recording compromise. In the opinion of this court, neither of these two petitions makes out a ground for modification/clarification in the earlier order. All that this Court had directed in the aforesaid order was that if both the parties were voluntarily and willingly prepared to settle their dispute, their pending cases including the appeal should be disposed of by the competent court in terms of the compromise. Now when both the parties are again shifting blame on each and other, it becomes clear 3 that the order passed by this court in Civil Revision was a wasteful exercise. That being so, the parties have their own remedy and for that the earlier order of this Court needs no modification/clarification. With the aforementioned observations, both these applications are disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)