JUDGMENT : A.P. Ravani, J. The petition is filed by wife who claimed maintenance from the respondent No. 2 her husband. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 took place on May 9, 1978, at village Bhayavadar, Taluka ; Upleta, Dist. Rajkot. Thereafter, for sometime, the parties stayed together. It appears that sometime in the month of April, 1979, the relations between the parties strained and as contended by the petitioner, she was deserted. Thus, the relations became further strained. Thereafter, it appears that snach on the parties stayed together for sometime near about Valsad. Ultimately, the petitioner filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 41 of 1981. The respondent No. 2 husband resisted the application on various grounds. The petitioner had claimed maintenance on the ground that the respondent-husband had neglected her and had failed to maintain her and that she was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance because she was not being treated properly and because she was deserted without any reasonable cause. The trial court, after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, rejected the application as per its order dated October 13, 1983. Against this order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revisi on Application No. 109 of 1982 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Valsad. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the revision application ultimately rejected the same as per the order dated February 16, 1983. 2. Being aggrieved; by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed this Special Criminal Application in this Court. This Court admitted the application on 1-4-1983 and made the rule returnable on May 2, 1993. 3. After the respondent No. 2 husband was served, both the petitioner and the respondent-husband had personally remained present in the Court. But the intervention and on account of the persuasion of the advocates of the parties, the petitioner and the respondent-husband agreed to stay together Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned from time to time and at least on 2 to 3 occasions, both of them had come together before the Court and had expressed that they were staying together peacefully and there was no cause of trouble between them. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (husband) states that at least for a period of about one year, they are staying together and he has not received any complaint so far from the respondent No. 2 husband. Similar is the position with regard to the petitioner-wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has also received no complaint so far. In this view of the matter, the question of granting maintenance at present does not survive and, therefore, the petition also does not survive. 4. In above view of the matter, the Special Criminal Application stands rejected as having becomes infructuous. 5. Rule discharged. 6. In case of difficulties, liberty to move Court on or before August 31, 1985. Application rejected.