Judgment R. N. Lal, J. 1. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that admittedly the petitioner had married to Manju Devi but divoice arose between the couple and the petitioner filed a title suit bearing title Suit No 3/81 in the court of District Judge, Patna which was heard ex-parte and decreed on 25-6-1982. Thereafter, Manju Devi filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No.38 of 1983 in the court of Munsif-1 Patna for setting aside the said decree but the suit was dismissed by the Munsif on 3-1-1984 for default. Thereafter nothing was done by Manju Devi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the decree in matrimonial case the marriage got dissolved on 25-6-1982 itself. Thereafter Gopal Prasad Agrawal, brother of Man u Devi, (Opposite Party no 2) filed a case under Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner bearing Barahia P. S. Case No.61/83 dated 22-4-1983 and the cognizance was taken therein Thereafter, the petitioner went up in crimnal Revision before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, munger in Criminal Revision No.91/84 and the same was dismissed. 3. Mr Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, invoking inherent power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has submitted that with passing of the divorce decree the relationship between husband and wife got snapped on that date and Manju Devi was no longer wife of the petitioner thereafter. The present case was filed on 22-4-1983 when Manju Devi was not wife of the petitioner. So, there was no case of any demand of dowry at all. This fact was lost sight of the court below. Since there was no relationship of husband and wife the impugned orders passed by the Munsif or by the Additional Sessions Judge have no legs to stand. 4. Mr Sharma has produced the certified copy of the order of the court of Sub-judge-I. Patna in the Title Suit No.3/81 showing that the divorce decree was granted by the court on 25-6-1982. He has also produced the certified copy of the order of Munsif-I, Patna in Title Suit No.38/83 dated 3-1-1984 that the suit filed by the Manju Devi against the petitioner was dismissed for default. He has also produced the certified copy of the order of Munsif-I, Patna in Title Suit No.38/83 dated 3-1-1984 that the suit filed by the Manju Devi against the petitioner was dismissed for default. Now with the dismissal of both the suits it cuts at the very root of the case under Sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As there was no relationship of husband and wife after 25-6-1982 the petition of Gopal Prasad Agrawal (Opposite Party) has no leg to stand. 5. Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 informant, insiteof receipt of the notice of the Court. Learned counsel for the State is present but he is unable to improve upon the position. 6. In view of the fact that the divorce decree was already granted to the petitioner on 25-5-1982 there was no occasion of instituting a case for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he congizance taken for such offence by the Magistrate or dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st Additional Sessions judge has resulted to gross miscarriege of justice and this court must take notice of this miscarriege of justice as both the courts have grossly erred m this premises of law m finding a prima facie case against the petitioner. Ordinarily this court does not interefere exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure m such revision petition but it is imperative in this case to interfere for the ends of justice otherwise miscarriage of justice shall be perpetuated on the petitioner. 7. Since are already stated above relationship of husband and wife had got snapped, there was no question of committing any offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Tn that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order dated 9-1-1984 passed by the Sub-judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai at Munger against the petitioner in Barhaia P. S. Case No.61/83 and the order dated 2-8-1985 no 91/84 are hereby qushed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.