IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1445 of 2008 RAJANI RANJAN Versus MUKUL KUMAR THAKUR ----------- 2 18/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Though counsel for the petitioner had made submission assailing the order dated 21.7.2008 on many grounds, but this Court would not like to go into the matter for the present as it would find that the interest of justice could be better served if matrimonial case is decided on contest. If for that reason the court below had allowed time to the husband, opposite party to file such written statement by 27.11.2008, not much can be said about that. However, this Court would find rather disturbing trend that in the matrimonial case where earlier husband was also given sufficient opportunity to file written statement and yet did not file the same then why the court below had given adjournment of four weeks. It would be clear from the entire order sheet of the court below that normally dates were given in the space of one month, but there does 2 not seem any reason for giving such long time for a period of four months. This Court right now without interfering with the impugned order would only expect that in future no such long adjournment is given in the matrimonial case where pleadings have not been completed. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the court below to ensure that whether on the next date fixed, i.e, 27.11.2008, the opposite party, husband appears or not, files his written statement or not, the court below must proceed further in accordance with law. With the above observations/ directions this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar