V. Gopal Naik vs Laxmi Srujana
2021 Latest Caselaw 458 Tel

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

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