ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. The counsel for the State is present. 2. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2. Cognizance was taken by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya on 19.03.2008 in connection with Complaint Case No.44 of 2008 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the stage of admission of this case also, opposite party no.2 did not appear. The marriage took place in the year 1984. 4. The children begotten out of the wedlock are staying with the petitioner. By order dated 12.03.2012, this application was admitted for hearing. In the hearing matter also, notice were issued to opposite party no.2. The service report discloses that opposite party no.2 has refused to accept notice even in the hearing matter. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 has lost all interest in restoring matrimonial obligation or even prosecuting the petitioner in the case, which was lodged by her. 6. This Court takes notice of the fact that two children born out of the wedlock are almost on the point of becoming major and they are being looked after well by the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 has chosen to remain single and presently, as has been informed to this Court, stays in her mother’s house. 7. Considering these aspect of the matter, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the record of the case pending. It would be of no importance either to allow the case to remain alive as against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance, which has been impugned in this application, dated 19.03.2008 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No.44 of 2008, is set aside. 8. The application is allowed. ?