Arvind Choudhary @ Arvind Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59278 of 2022 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22851 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas ====================================================== Arvind Choudhary @ Arvind Kumar Choudhary S/O Radhey Shyam Chaudhary Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Karghar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Amrita Kumari W/O Arvind Chaudhery @ Arvind Kumar Chaudhary Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Karghar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2023 This application has been filed for modification of order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22851 of 2022, whereby petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with condition that petitioner is ready to give maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) per month, whereby petitioner was directed to surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of order, but the petitioner being a labourer due to pitiable economic condition is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, this modification petition has been filed for reduction of the maintenance amount to Rs. 1,000/- per month.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59278 of 2022(5) dt.29-03-2023 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that consequently, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and on 26.03.2023 the petitioner paid cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) as one time settlement to the opposite party no. 2 and also returned the household articles which was given by the father of opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner at the time of marriage vide Annexure-1 (compromise petition) annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Amrita Kumari opposite party no. 2. Counsel for opposite party does not dispute the contention of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, this modification application has become infructuous and accordingly disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T