Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 35 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Shalini Jha

2004-01-08

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, TAPEN SEN

body2004
ORDER 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay was really in curing the defects and not in filing the appeal itself. 3. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 4. Hence, the petition is allowed. 5. The learned Judge, in the writ petition filed by the wife, interfered with the order of the Family Court permitting the father of the husband to act as his agent in the proceedings before the Family Court. It appears that earlier, the husband had sought permission to have himself represented by a counsel but that was declined. That order became final. The Family Court took the view in the subsequent application that in the circumstances and in view of the earlier order not permitting the husband to engage a counsel, it would be proper to permit the father of the first appellant to act as the agent of the appellant/husband before the Family Court. The learned Single Judge took note of the pleadings in the case and the fact that the father would also be a material witness in this case and in that situation, the order of the Family Court could not be sustained. It was thus that the order of the Family Court was interfered with. 6. After having heard the parties at length, we are not satisfied that any interference is warranted. It is also brought to our notice by Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the wife that on the application made by the husband, the matrimonial suit has been fixed for day to day trial and conclusion commencing from 22.2.2004. Of course, this part of the submission of Mr. V.P. Singh is not accepted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, counsel for the husband, but for the moment, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. V.P. Singh. We think it desirable to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to try on a day to day basis, the dispute and decide finally the Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 13 of 2000 one way or the other so that the husband would not be prejudiced or forced to stay away for a considerably long period or at frequent intervals from his job. Mr. Mr. V.P. Singh assures us that the wife will cooperate in the matter for final disposal of the dispute. It will be in the interests of the husband to cooperate with an early disposal of the dispute. 7. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above directions. Appeal disposed of.