1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 11/2011. Smt. Usha Pandurang Shirsat VERSUS Pandurang Kisanrao Shirsat ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 18.01.2011. Heard Shri Rajanish Vyas, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The above appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/2006 by which the decree of divorce passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in H.M.P.No. 100/2003 on 30.09.2004, in favour of the respondent herein came to be confirmed. The appellant is the wife of the respondent herein and the marriage between the two took place on 14.06.1990. It appears that on account of the acrimony in the 2 marriage, the respondent has filed H.M.P.No. 100/2003 invoking Section 13[i-a] and 13[i-b] of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said petition, as the record indicates the appellant herein did not file her written statement inspite of several opportunities, as also did not remain present when the said petition was heard. The Court was therefore, perforce required to decide the matter in the absence of the appellant, and by its judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 decreed the said marriage petition and granted a decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by the said decree of divorce, the appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.65/2006. It appears that the said appeal was also filed belatedly, and therefore, she had filed an application for condonation of delay, which application came to be allowed by order dated 07.02.2006, hence the conduct of the appellant herein of being indolent and negligent in the matter of prosecuting, the remedies is writ large on the proceedings. The first Appellate Court on the basis of the case made out by the respondent herein in his Hindu Marriage Petition, accepted the said case and confirmed the decree. In the first Appellate Court, the fact that the respondent herein got married second time after the period for filing the appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court was 3 over, was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court. The said second marriage of the respondent has taken place on 05.05.2005, which was not disputed by the appellant. The Appellate Court therefore, considering the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the appellant, as also taking into consideration the aforesaid fact of the respondent getting married second time, did not deem it fit to interfere with the decree passed. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact. In view thereof, no substantial question of law arise in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd