IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.495 of 2007 JUGAL PRASAD @ JUGAL SINGH Versus RAM DULARI DEVI ----------- 2. 19.8.2008 Surendra/ Heard counsel for the petitioner. While counsel for the petitioner would not dispute as with regard to quantum of amount of maintenance, what he intends to convey to this Court is that as a matter of fact the opposite party is not the wife of the petitioner. From the evidence, which has been adduced by the parties and has been examined by the court below, in course of passing the impugned order would not permit for a second inning to be played by the petitioner. At this stage counsel for the petitioner realizing the fate of this application would pray to withdraw this application with a liberty to file an appropriate application under section 125(4)/ 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court would not express any opinion on such prayer of the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for, with the aforementioned liberty. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)