Sunny Prakash Bhardwaj vs Niharika Saikia
2023 Latest Caselaw 3231 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010238052022




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                I.A.(Civil)/3488/2022
                              In Mat. App. No. 45/2022

         SUNNY PRAKASH BHARDWAJ
         S/O LATE PRAKASH DUTTA
         R/O CHOLADHARA
         NEAR BORPUKHURI
         P.O.
         P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT
         ASSAM.


          VERSUS

         NIHARIKA SAIKIA
         W/O SUNNY PRAKASH BHARADWAJ
         R/O J.B ROAD
         RAJAMAIDAM
         P.O.
         P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT
         ASSAM
         PIN- 785001.


         ------------
         Advocate for : MR. S S GOSWAMI
         Advocate for : appearing for NIHARIKA SAIKIA



                               BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                      ORDER

21-08-2023 Heard Shri S. S. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, who by means of Page No.# 2/2

this Interlocutory Application has prayed for an interim order in connection with impugned judgment dated 20.08.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat in TS (M) No. 105/2018. While the suit has been dismissed by rejecting the ground taken of desertion and cruelty, since a submission was made on behalf of the other party that she is not opposed to a divorce, while dismissing the suit, the learned Judge had made an observation that the parties put take recourse of law for such divorce by mutual consent. While dismissing the suit, the same was done with cost. The learned counsel, Shri Goswami has submitted that the part by which the suit has been dismissed on cost it is liable to be stayed.

In the appeal, notice has been issued on 28.11.2022 an LCR has been called for and in accordance with which the LCR has been received.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no ground for stay of the cost which is quantified to be only Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).

Accordingly, the IA stands rejected.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant