JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court, Bhavnagar in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 36/2013 by which the learned Family Court has dissolved the marriage between the appellant herein-respondent herein under Section 13(1)(a)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the original opponent-appellant has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein and Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate has vehemently submitted that as such no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant-wife to lead the evidence before the learned Family Court. It is submitted that therefore the appellant-wife could not place her case properly before the learned Family Court. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such the appellant-wife had bought the house-Block No. 137, Opp. Vasundhara School, Akhlol Jakatl Naka, Maninagar, Kulsar, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "said property") from her own income which has not been considered by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that even the respondent-husband did not take care of the expenses incurred by the wife for the marriages of her two sons. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband. It is specifically denied that the appellant-wife was not given any adequate opportunity to represent her case before the learned Family Court. It is submitted that as such the appellant-wife did appear before the learned Family Court, however thereafter for whatever reason did not lead any evidence. 4.1. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband that even after the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent-husband has re-married and is staying happily. He has also stated at the Bar under the instructions from the respondent husband, who is personally present in the Court, that he does not claim any right, title or interest in the said property, which was purchased in the name of the appellant wife. 5. He has also stated at the Bar under the instructions from the respondent husband, who is personally present in the Court, that he does not claim any right, title or interest in the said property, which was purchased in the name of the appellant wife. 5. Heard Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein and Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. We have perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that by impugned judgment and decree the learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent under Section 13(1)(a)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act as far as back on 24.03.2014. It is not in dispute now that before even the appeal was preferred, the original applicant-husband has already remarried and according to the affidavit filed by him, he is staying happily. It is required to be noted that in the present case the appeal was preferred in the month of March, 2015, which was dismissed for non-prosecution for non-removal of office objections. Thereafter, the same was restored to file and thereafter it came up for hearing before this Court for admission hearing for the first time on 23.06.2016. Therefore, the present appeal is required to be considered in light of the subsequent development also. Even otherwise considering the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court it appears that neither the appellant had led any evidence nor even cross-examine the original applicant and his witness. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of evidence when the learned Family Court has passed the judgment and decree, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 5.1. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of evidence when the learned Family Court has passed the judgment and decree, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 5.1. Now, so far as the grievance made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant though the same cannot be the subject matter of the present First Appeal, that the said property has been purchased by her from her own income and therefore, the respondent husband may claim the right or interest in the said property is concerned, Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband has stated at the Bar and has declared that the respondent husband does not claim any right, title or interest in the said property and he has no objection if the said property is transferred in the name of appellant-wife. He has also stated at the Bar that all cooperation shall be given by him as and when required to get the aforesaid property transferred in her name. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid statement will take care of the apprehension on the part of the appellant with respect to the said property. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court. Hence, the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5392/2016 On dismissal of main First Appeal, Civil Application No. 5392/2016 stands dismissed.