IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.635 of 2009 KRISHAN KUMAR MANDAL Versus SRIMATI KUMKUM DEVI ----------- 13 08.07.2010 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant filed Marriage Case No. 36 of 1998 before the Family Court at Bhagalpur on grounds of adultery. It came to be dismissed on the ground that the person with whom the respondent allegedly had adulterous relationship was not impleaded as party. On perusal of the pleadings further the family Court opined that it was not very clear that the appellant wanted divorce on ground of adultery or he was seeking judicial separation. Before this Court, as noticed in the order dated 9.2.2010, a third stand was taken of ‘cruelty’. Be that as it may. The parties have now filed separate affidavits that they are both desirous of divorce by mutual consent. In the nature of the impugned order, there is no occasion for us to interfere in absence of any infirmity in law. The appeal has therefore to be dismissed. The approach of the Courts in matrimonial matters has been different from that in what may be otherwise termed as regular litigation. Matrimonial 2 matters involve a question of two human lives, social aspects etc. If subsequent developments take place notwithstanding the fact that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in a matrimonial matter, it shall be the duty of the Court to help the parties resolve their problem to continue with their lives in a manner and harmony of their choice. It is the specific assertion of the parties that they shall be filing an application for divorce by mutual consent within a maximum period of two months from today. Any such application is required to be considered by the Family Court on its own merit and disposed in accordance with law without being influenced or prejudiced in any manner with the present order. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)