JUDGMENT
Arun Madan, J.
1. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the appeal as also of application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued on 30.9.1994. By order dated 1.3.1997 it was directed that the matter regarding delay shall be decided alongwith the appeal. The appeal is awaiting hearing since 10.3.1995, when notices of the application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and so also of appeal were received duly served.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 31.5.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk in H.M.A. Case No. 44/88 by which the application filed by the respondent (husband) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion was sought for but decreed in favour of the respondent on the ground of cruelty only.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant (wife), which is now being decided finally by this order at the request of parties’ Counsel.
4. The undisputed position on the record is that pursuant to the decree of divorce passed by the Trial Court, there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties nor reconciliation has taken place till date.
5. During the course of hearing, I am informed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that prior to passing of the impugned judgment and decree, the respondent had also contracted a second marriage on 21.12.1997. Complaint was also filed against the respondent by the appellant-wife for offence of bigamy Under Section 494, 1 .P.C. The said proceedings have ultimately culminated in dismissal of the complaint. Vide judgment and order dated 13.9.2000 of the learned Civil Judge (JD) Class-I, Kekri passed in Crl Case No. 73/1992 accused has been acquitted of the charge for the offence Under Sections 494 and 109, I.P.C. It has not been brought to the notice of the Court as to whether any appeal was preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment or not?
6. Be that as it may, in my view, no purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending as the marriage between the parties to the present appeal already stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 31.5.1994 Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Even on merits, there is no case in favour of the appellant to succeed. The decree does not call for any interference.
7. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 31.5.1994 is confirmed. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
8. However, it is open to the appellant that in case she is so advised, she may seek such alternate remedy as may be available to her in accordance with law and for that this judgment shall not come in her way. The record be transmitted back to the Trial Court forthwith.