IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.307 of 2008 Ali Imam son of Sk. Yasin, resident of village Haiswan, P.S. Sathi, District West Champaran, Bettiah. ……..Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Azra Pravin wife of Ali Imam, daughter of Sk. Arif, resident of village Nakchhed Bahuarwa, P.S. Purusottampur, District West Champaran, Bettiah. ........Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellant : Mr. Shanti Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----------- 04/ 04.05.2010 I.A. No.3617 of 2010 has been filed on 13.04.2010 on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing of the second appeal. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the appellant from filing the second appeal earlier. Accordingly, the aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing of the second appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.12 of 2003, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for declaration that the sole defendant-appellant had divorced the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a divorced lady and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed ex-parte without cost by Subordinate Judge-I, Bettiah vide his judgment and decree dated 2 07.06.2005 amended on 22.07.2005. 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court the sole defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No.11 of 2005 which was dismissed on contest by the District Judge, West Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 26.07.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below but the fact remains that the plaintiff was admittedly wife of the defendant and the plaintiff had specifically claimed in her pleading and evidence that she was married to the defendant on 21.04.1998 according to the provision of Mohammedan Law and dain mohar was fixed at Rs.50,786.00 which was never paid. It was also claimed that she was taken to defendant’s house where the defendant and members of his family started torturing her for a motorcycle and somehow her father took her away from there and finally the defendant divorced her on 08.12.2002 in presence of two witnesses and the said two witnesses also appeared before the court and supported the claim of the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff’s claim was also supported by the findings of Emarat-e-shariya (Ext.1 and Ext.1/A). So far the aforesaid document of Emarat-e-shariya is concerned, no doubt its certificate is not binding upon the court but it can very well be considered as an evidence along with other evidences on record, 3 specially when in these days much stress is being given on alternative dispute redressal forums. In the instant case the courts below have not relied upon the said document solely, rather they have mainly considered the evidence of the plaintiff and the two witnesses of divorce which was also supported by the said document. 7. Although the defendant-appellant has denied any divorce but the aforesaid facts along with his conduct clearly shows that there had been a divorce and the defendant is trying to delay the proceeding only to harass the plaintiff for wrongful gains. This view is also supported by the fact that even after notice of the suit was validly served upon the defendant, he did not appear, hence the case was fixed for hearing on 08.04.2003 and only thereafter on 09.07.2003 the defendant appeared and filed a petition for recall of order of ex-parte hearing which was rejected by the trial court on 18.03.2004. 8. Again a similar petition was filed by the defendant which was also dismissed by the trial court 09.01.2005 whereafter the defendant prayed before the trial court for grant of sometime, as he wanted to bring some order of stay from the higher court, but although several months passed but neither any order was produced nor the defendant ever mentioned that he had even filed any appeal or revision before the higher court against the said order nor took any further step in the suit. 9. Furthermore, even when the evidence of the 4 plaintiff was being adduced, the defendant did not pray or file any petition before the trial court for being allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and only then the suit was decreed. These facts elaborately show the nefarious intention of the defendant to harass his erstwhile wife, whom he had already divorced. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )