ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, vide order dated 13.2.2008, both parties have appeared in person along with their respective lawyers. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a draft copy of the memorandum of application proposed to be filed under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court. 4. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 informs that the petitioner has already filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act and by a subsequent petition, has prayed before the Court below to treat the aforesaid petition as petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Opposite Party No. 2. namely, the husband of the petitioner has also appeared in the said proceedings and has filed his written statement therein. It is further informed that the petitioner, who is the applicant in the aforesaid matrimonial suit, has already adduced her evidence and now this case has been posted for evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2/husband. It is further informed that the Court below has already proceeded in the matter on the basis of the original application of the petitioner/wife. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present endeavour to file a petition for divorce with mutual consent separately in the same Court, appears to be redundant. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner shall be free to pursue the matter relating to divorce, pending before the Family Court at Dhanbad. 7. As regards the prayer of the petitioner in the instant application for cancellation of bail of the Opposite Party No. 2, the ground advanced is that since after securing bail, the Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to cooperate with the petitioner in the matter of filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent as also in the matter of returning the articles belonging to the petitioner, which were given at the time of marriage. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 informs that the articles have been returned to the petitioner in presence of their respective lawyers at Dhanbad and a record thereof has also been prepared and filed before the Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Case vide M.P. Case No. 413 of 2005, corresponding to Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 194 of 2006. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 informs that the articles have been returned to the petitioner in presence of their respective lawyers at Dhanbad and a record thereof has also been prepared and filed before the Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Case vide M.P. Case No. 413 of 2005, corresponding to Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 194 of 2006. The petitioner has denied the above claim by countering that only silver ornaments have been returned but the Gold jewellery and cash. which was received by the Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of marriage have not been returned. The Opposite Party No. 2 retorts by claiming that he has returned the Gold jewellery as well but as regards cash, he is not able to return any money to the petitioner, since he does not have the same. These are the matters which may perhaps be considered by the Family Court, since this Court is not concerned with the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further invites attention to a written com-plaint lodged by one Manish Kumar Gupta, the brother of the petitioner, who has filed complaint against the Opposite Party No. 2, wherein, he has made allegations that the Opposite Party No. 2 has threatened the petitioner and her family members. The complaint on being entertained, is subject to enquiry. This in itself does not constitute a reasonable ground for cancellation of bail. Apart from this, there appears no other circumstance to give a reasonable ground to invite the inference that the Opposite Party No. 2 has in any manner misused and abused the privilege of bail granted to him 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, there being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed