Judgment 1. These are matters between two parties, a husband and a wife. The name of the husband is Rajesh Kumar Singh and the name of the wife is Rita Singh. Both were married in Patna, Bihar, India. They went to England. They settled down there. They lived as husband and wife in England in Harrow, Middlesex. The husband Rajesh Kumar Singh applied and was granted a decree-nisi for divorce by the Watford County Court. It was exparte. The decree which has been filed before the High Court today has been issued by the Watford County Court between Rajesh Kumar Singh, who applied against Rita Singh, his wife. It was granted on 27 September 1994 in matter no. 94D1134. The decree notices "This is not the final decree." Rajesh Kumar Singh is a citizen of United Kingdom. His wife Rita Singh is a citizen of India. 2. The decree is exparte. In the circumstances, this court can make no comment upon it. The record must lie thus. On the other hand the wife Rita Singh has applied for maintenance before the Family Court, Patna, Bihar, India. Maintenance has been granted. The husband resists the payment of maintenance. 3. By far all the litigations in which the husband takes up defence or resists the proceedings in courts, that is, the District Court or for that matter the High Court in India, the affidavits have not been filed by him. They are being filed by agents or those who hold his power of attorney, otherwise, in India known as pairopkar or pairvikar. This is a matter between husband and wife. Family matters cannot be contested through friends or persons holding a power of attorney, or as pairopkaror pairvikar. 4. If the domicile and citizenship of the two, husband and wife are not common, then such matters do raise issues under Private International Law. This court can make no comment if the husband has obtained a decree of divorce exparte. This court also cannot quash proceedings for maintenance if the wife faces an exparte decree and yet no court in India can be ousted of its jurisdiction when it considers the prayer of a wife for maintenance. In the present case she has given details of the assets and properties of her husband on the basis of which she seeks maintenance for the Family Court, Patna. The husband had filed a petition (CWJC. In the present case she has given details of the assets and properties of her husband on the basis of which she seeks maintenance for the Family Court, Patna. The husband had filed a petition (CWJC. No. 3831 of 2003), this was in the High Courts prerogative writ jurisdiction. The learned judge declined to interfere on the writ petition. Against the order of the learned judge, the husband through an agent, attorney, pairopkar or pairvikar, filed a letters patent appeal. These are personal actions which affect personal relations. It is entirely up to the husband to resist the actions brought by his wife to courts in India. But, he certainly cannot take up a defence and plead through agents. In a matter which arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the husband and the wife have to be face to face. 5. The letters patent appeal which the husband has utilized rests on justice, eq uity and good conscience. It was ordained by a patent from the then Sovereign. The same Sovereign judges its subject (the husband) in the United Kingdom. This subject cannot make the Courts in India, courts of inequitable pleas. Clearly, if the court were to resolve the issue then it has to take recourse to the substantive law of the land, that is, the Civil Procedure Code under Order XXXIIA (suits relating to matters concerning the family). But, can the court resort to this provision. As a first step the court is obliged to resolve a conflict. The parties were married as Hindus. But Hindu marriage is a sacrament. It is not meant to be broken up and, thus, the Code of Civil Procedure is a substantive law which applies in every court i.e., Family Court or the High Court to ensure that if there be the remotest possibility of getting husband and wife together an effort should be made. The High Court cannot make this effort because the husband will not present himself in any court of India particularly the Family Court or the High Court. The record, thus, must rest here. 6. The issues between husband and the wife and the exparte divorce which was sought and granted has ultimately generated the following litigations: At Supreme Court At High Court At Civil Court SLR No. (Cr.)526-528 of 1998 Cr. Misc. No. 2711 of 2000 Misc. The record, thus, must rest here. 6. The issues between husband and the wife and the exparte divorce which was sought and granted has ultimately generated the following litigations: At Supreme Court At High Court At Civil Court SLR No. (Cr.)526-528 of 1998 Cr. Misc. No. 2711 of 2000 Misc. Case No. 14 of 1996 Transfer Petition (Cr.) 554-555 of 2002 Misc. Appl No. 525 Of 1997 Civil Rev. Title Suit No. 1 of 1997 Execution Case Transfer Petition (Civil) 137-138 of 2003 No. 1348 Of 2001 No. 4 of 2003 Civil Rev. No. Cr. Rev. No. 1326 of 2001 299 of 1998 SLP (Civil) No. 19259 of 2002 CWJC. No. 3831 of 2003 S.K. Puri Case No. 1 of 1996 SLP (Civil) No. 20450 of 2002 L P.A. No, 43 of 2003 7 In so far as the record is concerned, in all sixteen cases were filed. There is no issue at the bar even today that these are matters personal in the personal relations arising out of matrimony. Five cases were filed at the Supreme Court. The husband also seeks transfer of proceedings outside the State of Bihar as there is one such matter before the Supreme Court. On this the court refrains from commenting. 8. This court is of the opinion that in the context of the present matter these are the matters of Private International Law. The marriage was solemnized in India. After marriage the parties lived in the United Kingdom. An exparte decree of divorce was obtained by the husband in the United Kingdom. The wife is unable to go to the United Kingdom. The husband will not come and face any proceedings which have been filed by his wife for maintenance or otherwise before the courts in India. 9. Justice, equity and good conscience as it flows out of the letters patent appeal jurisdiction does not permit tha court to interfere with the order [Reported in 2004(3) PLJR 193 ] of the learned judge on the writ petition when he declined to interfere in the matter which lies at the District Court, Patna, in Title Suit No. 1 of 1997. 10. Thus, dismissed. 11. A copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General, High Court, Patna, Bihar, (India) to the Watford County Court, which granted a decree-nisi on 27th September 1994 between Rajesh Kumar Singh and Rita Singh.