1 Letters Patent Appeal No.1337 OF 2000 --- RAJESH KUMAR--------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR----------(Respondents) --- For the appellant: Messrs. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Nishant Choudhary, Sanjeet Kumar Singh, For the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Shahi, P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL --- SHIVA KIRTI SINGH & KISHORE K. MANDAL, JJ: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The appellant filed the writ petition bearing CWJC.No.8126 of 2000 to assail the validity of an order dated 22.11.1999 passed in Matrimonial Case no.31 of 1998 by the Principal Judge, Patna, allowing Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 and also Rs.1500/- as a lump sum by way of cost of litigation. On behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant the order dated 22.11.1999 was challenged through a civil revision application before this court but was ultimately withdrawn as appears from the order dated 28.7.2000 passed in C.R. no.256 of 2000, which has been annexed as Anneure-1. Thereafter the 2 writ petitioner/appellant preferred the writ petition against grant of maintenance to respondent no.2 on various grounds including a ground that he was forcibly married to respondent no.2. It appears from the order under appeal that the writ court has considered a reported judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Indu Singh vs. Dr. Ranjeet Singh, 1995 (2) PLJR 354, and in that light it has recorded that the revision application was maintainable before this court and since the same was withdrawn no writ jurisdiction could be exercised after merger of the order of the civil court passed by the Special Judge into the order of this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction permitting withdrawal of the revision application. In the facts of the case, we find no error in the order of the writ court and we further find that the nature of the defence raised by the writ petitioner/appellant requires determination of issues on facts and on such issues, which remain to be determined by the Principal Judge, Patna in a matrimonial suit, the writ petitioner/appellant cannot succeed in getting any relief in writ jurisdiction. 3 It appears that on the last date parties had been given six weeks time to find out the present stage of the matter pending in the court below but they have not received any instructions from their clients. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under letters patent appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to cost. It is expected that if the Matrimonial Case no.31 of 1998 is still pending then the same shall be taken up and decided expeditiously if the parties take interest for that purpose. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Dated, the 5th May, 2008 NAFR/(Neyaz)