IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1667 of 2008 ADEYA DEVI @ ADYA DEVI Versus SUDAMA YADAV ----------- 2 30.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. It is really unfortunate that the Court below has passed a cryptic order without taking into account two admitted facts. One being that there was already an inter-party finding in a suit for restitution of conjugal right filed by the opposite party, husband that he had already entered into second marriage on account of which the petitioner could not be compelled to live together with the opposite party. Added to it, from the said judgment of the matrimonial case filed by the opposite party, it would also appear that the opposite party had alleged that the petitioner to be living in adultery. If, these two reasons were not good enough for the petitioner to refuse to stay with the husband in course of conciliation proceedings taken by the Court below, what else could have been? It is a matter of fact the Court below could not have become so sensitive that once its effort for amicable settlement had failed, it had to proceed to dismiss the application seeking maintenance under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the observations made above and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this civil revision application is hereby allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)