Sakendra Mahto @ Sakendra Prasad Mehta v. Uma Devi

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate ---------------

O R D E R 08th August 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This First Appeal has been preferred by the husband against the judgment dated 19th June 2017 passed in MTS Case No. 23 of 2012 (in short, divorce suit). The divorce suit was instituted by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery as provided under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 04th April 1992 in a Shiva temple at village Porha, PO&PS Ichak, District Hazaribagh. The husband set up a plea that after staying with him for two days his wife left his company and there was no cohabitation between them. There are various allegations made by both the parties against each other and there is reference of a criminal case for demand of dowry and harassment allegedly inflicted upon the wife by the appellant-husband.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh framed the following issues in the M.T.S. No. 23 of 2012:

10. Issue Nos. (i) & (ii):- At the time of deciding Issues nos. (iii), (iv) & (v) I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent is living adulterous life. He has also failed to prove that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no valid cause of action for filing of the suit and the suit of petitioner is not maintainable in the present form. Hence, these issues are also decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent. 11. Issues Nos. (vi) & (vii):- At the time of deciding Issues nos. (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (v) I come to the conclusion that the 2 FA No. 219 of 2017 suit as framed is not maintainable and the petitioner has no valid cause of action for filing of the suit and I also come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent is living adulterous life. He has also failed to prove that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty.

All issues were decided against the appellant and the suit was dismissed on contest holding that the appellant was not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.

FA No. 219 of 2017 was filed by the husband on 28 th July 2017 and it was admitted for hearing by an order dated 1st May 2018.

The proceedings in this First Appeal would reveal that legal aid was offered to the respondent, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel filed vakalatnama on her behalf.

By an order dated 07th April 2021, the matter was directed to be listed under the heading for “Hearing” after two weeks.

However, as would appear from the subsequent proceedings in FA No. 219 of 2017 this First Appeal could not be finally decided for one reason or the other.

The order dated 20th April 2022 reveals that a statement was made by Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondent that the daughter of the respondent informed her that the respondent has passed away. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 05th May 2022 to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to seek instruction about the respondent.

Mr. Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant states that inspite of his best efforts he could not establish contact with the appellant. The learned counsel states that he tried to reach the appellant several times on his mobile no. [REDACTED] including on 22nd April 2022 and 11th May 2022 and wrote letters on 05th May 2022 and 6th July 2022 – however, the appellant did not respond to the aforesaid calls/ communications made by him.

The aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the appellant have been reduced in writing, which is taken on record.

Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that till March 2022 she could not contact the respondent as her mobile was out of service and it was only on 05 th April 2022 that she was informed by the daughter of Uma Devi that she has passed away on 20th February 2022. The learned counsel for the respondent further states that she has been trying to make contact with the daughter of Uma Devi, on several occasions including 3 FA No. 219 of 2017 on 9th May 2022 and 4th August 2022 on her mobile no. [REDACTED].

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, that the learned counsels appearing for the parties have taken steps to prosecute the matter but the parties did not turn up, we, therefore, feel that no purpose would be served to keep F.A. No. 219 of 2017 pending any further and, accordingly, F.A. No. 219 of 2017 is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 08th August 2022 Tanuj/RKM N.A.F.R