IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1088 of 2006 ARUN KUMAR PURBEY Versus MANJU DEVI & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Ashok Kumar Prasad & Shyam Kishore Das. ------------ 4 20/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice to the opposite parties no one has appeared on their behalf to contest this Civil Revision Application. Some times subsequent events make cause of action infructuous. Present case seems to be one of such nature. All that is required to be taken into consideration is that the marriage was solemnized on 12.6.1982 between the petitioner and opposite party no.1. Thus when even after seven years of marriage their relationship could not make any headway, the husband, petitioner filed a suit for divorce being Divorce Case No. 4 of 1989, before the court of District Judge, Madhubani. Though it is claimed that the wife, opposite party had appeared in the aforesaid divorce suit filed by her husband on 29.8.1989, she had thereafter abandoned her claim by not appearing further in the 2 case. The wife, opposite party had subsequently filed her own suit before the Sub. Judge, Darbhanga being Title Suit No. 80 of 1990, wherein she came out with a prayer that her ornaments lying with her husband, petitioner of this case be directed to be returned as also the husband, petitioner be restrained from entering into any second marriage. As noted above, the wife, opposite party had abandoned her claim to contest the divorce suit, as is recorded in the judgment and decree of the divorce suit dated 4.4.1991. Such finding of fact recorded by the Court granting divorce in favour of husband, petitioner by judgment dated 4.4.1991 in Divorce Case No. 4 of 1989 in fact has also acquired finality by dismissal of First Appeal filed by the wife, opposite party, who had moved this Court in First Appeal No. 375 of 1991. The judgment of this Court dated 17.1.1996 in First Appeal No. 375 of 1991 would bear it out that the judgment of the District Judge, Madhubani in the Divorce case No. 4 of 1991 was affirmed and consequently the 3 appeal was dismissed with certain observations, one of them being that the husband, petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1100/- per month by way of permanent alimony. The effect of the judgment of this Court dated 17.1.1996 would be that now the husband, petitioner was a free bird and he could have entered into marriage with any one. That being so, the petitioner had filed an application before the court below to take notice of the subsequent event and dispose of the suit. Of course wording used in the application filed by the husband, petitioner before the court below in the application dated 3.7.1998 may not be properly drafted, in as much as, stay of the suit was sought in terms of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but as a matter of fact all that the husband petitioner had asked for, was to say good bye to his divorced wife in view of judgment of this Court dated 17.1.1996 in First Appeal No. 375 of 1991. Therefore, the court below in all fairness ought to have not kept the issue pending 4 as has been done by the impugned order by directing that such application dated 3.7.1998 would be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case. In fact, nothing was left to be decided in the suit because as noted above the suit had only two relief, one being with regard to return of the ornaments and the other with regard to husband, petitioner being restrained from entering into second marriage. Though, this Court would not like to make any comment with relief No.1, i.e, return of ornaments, one of the two prayers pending in Title Suit no. 80 of 1990, but it would definitely hold that in view of judgment of this Court dated 17.1.1996 in First Appeal No. 375 of 1991 that the second relief for restraining the husband, petitioner from entering into second marriage cannot be now even considered or much less allowed, in as much as, the decree of divorce of the husband, petitioner dated 4.4.1991/19.4.1991 stands affirmed upto this Court. 5 In that view of the matter, while this Court would not set aside the impugned order, it would definitely direct the court below to take into account the subsequent events, as noted above, and dispose of the suit itself within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be noted that this Court has expressed no opinion with regard to other relief of the wife opposite party with regard to return of ornaments as being claimed by the wife, opposite party. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar