Puja Agarwal vs Pawan Agarwal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4749 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

                                FA No. 234 of 2017

Puja Agarwal, w/o Pawan Agarwal, d/o Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Permanent r/o
Aastha Trade Centre, Q. Road, PO & PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum.                                                              ......Appellant

                                       Versus
Pawan Agarwal, s/o Rajendra Agarwal, r/o Jodh Raj Bhawan, Opposite- Anand
Talkies, PO & PS Sitabadi, Nagpur                                     ..... Respondent

                                  ---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Amicus

---------------

Order No. 21 /Dated: 28th November 2022

The appellant filed Matrimonial Suit No. 236 of 2016 (in short, Divorce Suit) for a decree of divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' as envisaged under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. By judgment dated 30 th June 2017, the Divorce Suit has been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

The Family Court while dismissing the Divorce Suit has observed as under:

"15. As the preliminary issue of the territorial jurisdiction has been decided against the petitioner, and it has been held on the basis of above discussion that, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, there is no necessity to decide other issue settled by this court."

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this First Appeal with liberty to the appellant to seek remedy as available to her in law.

Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned Amicus fairly submits that such a prayer seeking withdrawal of this First Appeal shall not be opposed by her.

Accordingly, FA No. 234 of 2017 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to work out her remedy as available to her in law.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) RKM