IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.74 of 2010
ARJUN MAHTO
Versus
MAMTA DEVI
-----------
4. 13.7.2010. Heard counsel for the appellant on
I.A.No.1019 of 2010 for condonation of 23 days
delay as also on the memo of appeal.
We have gone through the judgment under
appeal. We are satisfied that no useful purpose
shall be served by condoning the delay of
approximately 23 days as there is no merit in the
appeal itself. In any event no sufficient cause
has been shown for condoning the delay.
The appellant sought divorce from the
respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act on grounds that his wife allegedly had love
affair and physical relationship with other boys.
The Family Court has observed on consideration of
evidence that he has neither disclosed the names
of the persons with whom he suspected that his
wife had physical relations nor was the allegation
specific about the number of persons with whom his
wife was said to be indulging in love affair. The
relief sought for was full of contradictions.
According to him, his mother had seen the
2
persons involved in indecent act with the
respondent, yet the appellant did not even produce
his mother for recording her evidence.
The fact that the respondent may not have
appeared despite notice before the court below
leading to an ex parte order of dismissal of the
prayer for divorce is of no relevance.
Only after the appellant had proved his
case by evidence did the question of rebuttal by
the respondent arise. If the appellant failed to
prove his case there was nothing for the
respondent to rebutt.
The impugned order is well considered,
reasoned and discussed on merits.
We find no merit in the limitation
petition or memo of appeal. Both are accordingly
dismissed.
(Navin Sinha,J.)
(Jyoti Saran, J.)
ahk