8
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
F.C.A.No.65 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment dated
25.01.2019, passed by the learned Family Court, on a petition filed by
the respondent/wife seeking a declaration that the marriage between
the parties that was solemnised on 16.05.2012 was null and void, on the ground that the appellant/husband was already married to a lady prior to this marriage solemnised with the respondent/wife.
2. Admittedly, the appellant's first marriage was dissolved on 20.06.2013, whereas he had proceeded to perform his marriage with the respondent/wife much before the said date, on 16.05.2012. It was concluded by the Family Court that during the subsistence of the first marriage, the appellant/husband could not have solemnised a second marriage with the respondent.
3. When the present appeal was listed for admission before the predecessor Bench on 14.11.2019, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant/husband. The said position was duly recorded in the order and it was clarified that in case learned counsel for the appellant does not appear on the next date of hearing, the appeal will be dismissed for non-prosecution. With those directions, the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2019. On 28.11.2019, Mr. G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Advocate had appeared for the appellant/husband and a fresh notice F.C.A.No.65 of 2019 Page 1 of 2 was issued in the appeal. Further, personal service was permitted on the respondent.
4. On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellant/husband as to whether proof of personal service has been placed on record, he concedes that no proof has been filed. He further admits that no effort has been made to effect personal service on the respondent/wife over the past one and a quarter year. He seeks to submit that the respondent/wife is no longer available at the address given in the Memo of parties.
5. We would have accepted the said submission had learned counsel for the appellant filed documents to establish that some efforts were made to serve the respondent/wife or even the tracking report of speed post was filed. No such steps have been taken by learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The appellant/husband appears to be deliberately dragging his feet and there is no plausible explanation for learned counsel to have failed to take any steps to serve the respondent/wife in all this duration. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution along with pending applications, if any.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 17.02.2021 JSU/pln F.C.A.No.65 of 2019 Page 2 of 2