IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1451 of 2008 MD. NASIRUDDIN S/O JALIL MIAN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAUSHAN KHATOON W/O MD. NASIRUDDIN --- OPP. PARTIES. with CR. REV. No.792 of 2008 RAUSHAN KHATOON W/O MD. NASRUDDIN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. NASRUDDIN SON OF JALIL MIYAN --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate. For the Ops : Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ----------- 05 24.09.2010 Both the matters arise out of order dated 01.07.2008, passed in maintenance case no. 138 of 2005 and as such they have been heard together and disposed of by the present order. Let it be recorded that Cr. Rev. no. 1451 of 2008 has been filed by the husband challenging the aforesaid order whereas Cr. Rev. no. 792 of 2008( Raushan Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar & Anrs.) has been filed by the applicant/wife against the same order praying therein that the order for payment of maintenance ought to have been passed w.e.f. the date of application and that the Court ought to have granted her the litigation cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of Cr. Rev. no. 1451 of 2008 submits that the order impugned was passed without service of notice and/or knowledge to the petitioner. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has conjectured that since the father and mother of the present petitioner 2 had filed certain applications in the present proceeding and as such the petitioner had the full knowledge of the proceeding. He, therefore, states before this Court that an application for recall of the ex parte order shall be filed by the petitioner in the Court below. He seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this application in order to approach the learned Family Court for recall of the impugned order which according to him was passed ex parte without service of notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has taken steps against the petitioner in the meanwhile for realization of the amount due to be paid to the wife by virtue of the order impugned. It is submitted that the petitioner may be given some protection. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that not a single penny has been paid to her by the husband/petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court in the light of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. no.1451 of 2008, allows the present application to be withdrawn enabling him to approach Court below for recall/setting aside the order impugned. If such an application is filed within 06 weeks from today the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. Petitioner (in Cr.Rev. no. 1451 of 2008) shall pay to the applicant/wife/opposite party no. 2 under receipt and/or deposit a sum of Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) in the Court below towards such payment within a period of 04 weeks. If 3 such amount is paid and/or deposited in accordance with the present order no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, namely Md. Nasiruddin ( in Cr. Rev. no. 1451 of 2008) in connection with order dated 01.07.2008 passed in Maintenance case no. 138 of 2005 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, till disposal of his application filed for recall/setting aside of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of Cr. Rev. no. 792 of 2008 submits that since the husband/petitioner has sought permission to withdrawn the application with the aforesaid liberty, therefore, she is not pressing the present application for the present. Both the matters stand disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)