IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.608 of 2009 ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH . Versus CHANDNI KUMARI . ----------- 04 21.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite valid service of notice. Paragraph-3 of the order impugned notices that despite valid service of notice including publication the respondent had not appeared in the court below also and the matter came to be decided ex parte. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the plea for divorce was primarily based on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery with one Binod Kumar, voluntarily. The father of the respondent had lodged Hazipur P.S. Case No. 308 of 2008 against certain named accused including the aforesaid Binod Kumar, for abduction of her daughter. The statement of the victim/respondent was recorded therein under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated of having gone voluntarily with Binod Kumar. The impugned order states that both these documents were available before the trial court. It proceeded to dismiss the application for divorce on the 2 ground that the First Information Report and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had not been marked exhibits. Apart from the same there was no other material before it in support of the claim for adultery. Once a Police Case is lodged, the F.I.R. becomes a legal document in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and part of the proceedings as at the very initial stage the First Information Report is sent to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is recorded before a Magistrate and forms part of judicial proceedings. The process for marking them as exhibits and proving them are matters of procedure. When none was denying the recording of a Police case and the statement of the alleged victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Court of Law, we are satisfied that the extremely technical view taken by the court below cannot be sustained. An application for divorce cannot be treated simply as a litigation to be tested strictly in terms of procedures alone. It deals with the aspect two human beings. If there are allegations supported by documents which the respondent chooses not to contest and the 3 documents are not in doubt themselves, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. The order dated 18.9.2009 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hazipur is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The marriage stands dissolved. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)