Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bijli Devi vs Rajendra Prasad Yadav on 13 February, 2017

Author: H. C. Mishra

Bench: H. C. Mishra, S.N.Pathak

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             F.A No. 5 of 2015

        Bijli Devi                                            ...... Appellant
                                       Versus
        Rajendra Prasad Yadav                                 ....... Respondent
                               --------
               CORAM       :  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
                             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR.S.N.PATHAK
                               --------
        For the Appellant :    Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate.
        For the Respondents:   Mr. V.S. Jha, Advocate
                                    ---------

9/13.02.2017

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

The appellant wife is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30.3.2011, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, in Matrimonial (Divorce) Petition No.53 of 2009, whereby, in an ex-parte proceeding, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of the alleged illicit relationship of the appellant with another married person.

It appears that the said other person, with whom the adultery is alleged, was not made the party in the suit. However, there was a delay of 1351 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 25.1.2016 passed by this Court in I.A No.4643 of 2015.

It is an admitted position that during this period, the respondent husband has married another lady and he is leading a married life.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is no use, entering into the merits of the appeal.

We are informed that out of the wedlock, the appellant has two minor daughters and as such, we are giving the liberty to the appellant to move the appropriate Court for maintenance of herself and the daughters which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Court on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any finding given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, in the impugned Judgment dated 30.3.2011, in Matrimonial (Divorce) Petition No.53 of 2009.

With these observations, this appeal stands dismissed.

(H. C. Mishra, J.) (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) BS/