Jharkhand High Court
Sakendra Mahto @ Sakendra Prasad ... vs Uma Devi on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
FA No. 219 of 2017
Sakendra Mahto @ Sakendra Prasad Mehta, S/o- Shri Bhuneshwar Mahto, r/o
village Dumraon, PO Dumraon, PS Ichak, District Hazaribag
......Appellant
Versus
Uma Devi, w/o Sakendra Mahto @ Sakendra Prasad Mehta, r/o village Pabra,
PO Pabra, PS Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag ..... Respondent
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
---------------
ORDER
th
08 August 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This First Appeal has been preferred by the husband against the
judgment dated 19th June 2017 passed in MTS Case No. 23 of 2012 (in short,
divorce suit). The divorce suit was instituted by the husband seeking
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery as
provided under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 04 th April
1992 in a Shiva temple at village Porha, PO&PS Ichak, District Hazaribagh.
The husband set up a plea that after staying with him for two days his wife left
his company and there was no cohabitation between them. There are various
allegations made by both the parties against each other and there is reference of
a criminal case for demand of dowry and harassment allegedly inflicted upon
the wife by the appellant-husband.
3. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh framed the
following issues in the M.T.S. No. 23 of 2012:
"10. Issue Nos.(i) & (ii):- At the time of deciding Issues
nos. (iii), (iv) & (v) I come to the conclusion that the
petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent is living
adulterous life. He has also failed to prove that the
respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty. Thus, I
come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no valid
cause of action for filing of the suit and the suit of
petitioner is not maintainable in the present form. Hence,
these issues are also decided against the petitioner and in
favour of respondent.
11. Issues Nos. (vi) & (vii):- At the time of deciding Issues
nos.(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (v) I come to the conclusion that the
suit as framed is not maintainable and the petitioner has
no valid cause of action for filing of the suit and I also
come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to
prove that the respondent is living adulterous life. He has
also failed to prove that the respondent has treated the
petitioner with cruelty."
4. All issues were decided against the appellant and the suit was
dismissed on contest holding that the appellant was not entitled for a decree of
divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
5. FA No. 219 of 2017 was filed by the husband on 28 th July 2017
and it was admitted for hearing by an order dated 1 st May 2018.
6. The proceedings in this First Appeal would reveal that legal aid
was offered to the respondent, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned
counsel filed vakalatnama on her behalf.
7. By an order dated 07th April 2021, the matter was directed to be
listed under the heading for "Hearing" after two weeks.
8. However, as would appear from the subsequent proceedings in FA
No. 219 of 2017 this First Appeal could not be finally decided for one reason or
the other.
9. The order dated 20th April 2022 reveals that a statement was made
by Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondent that the daughter
of the respondent informed her that the respondent has passed away.
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 05 th May 2022 to enable the learned
counsel for the appellant to seek instruction about the respondent.
10. Mr. Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant states
that inspite of his best efforts he could not establish contact with the appellant.
The learned counsel states that he tried to reach the appellant several times on
his mobile no. 9471513116 including on 22 nd April 2022 and 11th May 2022
and wrote letters on 05th May 2022 and 6th July 2022 - however, the appellant
did not respond to the aforesaid calls/ communications made by him.
11. The aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the
appellant have been reduced in writing, which is taken on record.
12. Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondent has
stated that till March 2022 she could not contact the respondent as her mobile
was out of service and it was only on 05 th April 2022 that she was informed by
the daughter of Uma Devi that she has passed away on 20 th February 2022. The
learned counsel for the respondent further states that she has been trying to
make contact with the daughter of Uma Devi, on several occasions including
on 9th May 2022 and 4th August 2022 on her mobile no. 9142039029.
13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, that the learned counsels
appearing for the parties have taken steps to prosecute the matter but the parties
did not turn up, we, therefore, feel that no purpose would be served to keep
F.A. No. 219 of 2017 pending any further and, accordingly, F.A. No. 219 of
2017 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 08th August 2022
Tanuj/RKM
N.A.F.R
