Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 134 (PAT)

Ashok Mandal v. Amrita Devi

2020-02-03

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2020
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:– Re. I.A. No.1 of 2019 Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent on I.A. No. 1 of 2019, which has been filed for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing this appeal. 2. The delay in filing this appeal is condoned on the grounds mentioned in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 and in the aforesaid manner I.A. No. 1 of 2019 stands disposed of. Re. M.A. No. 629 of 2019 3. This appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and decree dated 21.05.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Araria in Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 2016, which was filed by appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent for restitution of his conjugal right. 4. The respondent appeared in the aforesaid suit and she contested the said suit by filing her written statement. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court framed several issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and examined the witnesses produced by the parties. Learned Principal Judge after evaluating the materials available on the record found that the respondent was driven out from her matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand and, moreover, the appellant solemnized his second marriage during pendency of the suit and on the aforesaid basis, the learned Principal Judge came to conclusion that the respondent had sufficient reason to reside separately from the appellant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the appellant made several attempts to restore her matrimonial relationship with the respondent but without any rhyme or reason the respondent refused to lead her conjugal life with the appellant. He, further, submits that no doubt, the appellant has already solemnized his second marriage but even then he is ready to keep the respondent with full honour and dignity. He, further, submits that earlier the dispute of the parties was referred to Mediation Centre but due to non co-operative approach of the respondent, the matter could not be resolved. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent refuted the above stated submissions, arguing that, admittedly, appellant solemnized his second marriage with another lady in the life time of respondent and, therefore, learned Principal Judge rightly held that the respondent had sufficient reason to live separately from the appellant. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent refuted the above stated submissions, arguing that, admittedly, appellant solemnized his second marriage with another lady in the life time of respondent and, therefore, learned Principal Judge rightly held that the respondent had sufficient reason to live separately from the appellant. 7. Having heard the contentions of the parties, we went through the impugned judgment. 8. In our view, this appeal can be disposed of on admission stage itself. 9. This fact is not in dispute that the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with another lady during pendency of the Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 2016 and prior to filing of Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 2016, the respondent lodged criminal case against the appellant. The perusal of the impugned judgment, further, goes to show that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent supported the aforesaid fact and, therefore, we are of the view that there is no scope to interfere into the impugned judgment and, accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed on admission stage itself and the impugned judgment and decree are, hereby, confirmed.