IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19066 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 13.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State. In exercise of power under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Misc. Case No. 232 of 2006 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month by way of maintenance to legally married wife (opposite party no.2) of the petitioner. He has further stated that the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made earlier will also accrue as part of the arrears or otherwise in furtherance to the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner besides the question of law also submits that even today he wants to reconcile with his wife and is still ready to re-move all misgivings and resolve all his disputes and misunderstanding. But in view of the resistance or reluctance on the part of the wife the petitioner has not been able to go beyond a point. Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner has also filed a case for divorce in the year, 2007 and that by itself does not reflect the petitioner’s magnanimity shown before the High Court. The Court will not come in the way of the parties if they want to resolve the issue amongst themselves and lead a happy married life even henceforth. But since learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioner categorically states before this Court that he is willing to withdraw the case for divorce provided there is cooperation on the part of opposite party no.2, liberty is granted in this regard. He also submits that only grant of maintenance of a sum of Rs. 1000/- may not be enough for opposite party no.2 to get on with her life. Be that as it may, based on the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of maintenance which has been fixed based on the evidence and the capacity and standard of the parties to the dispute. But if reconciliation takes place and the parties come together then needless to say that the order impugned would have lost its meaning and even otherwise if the same requires reconsideration the law provides for the same under section 127 of the Cr. P.C. This application stands disposed of with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)