IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.777 of 2009 SMT. MADHULIKA SINHA wife of Sri Gautam Sinha, D/O Sri Kartik Charan Das,living at live Mohalla, Kishanganj, P.S,. Kishanganj, Distt- Kishanganj……………Opposite Party/Appellant Versus SRI GAUTAM SINHA son of Sri Saraju Pd. Sinha R/O 8-31, Anjali Apartment, Mitra Compound, Boring Road, Patna…………Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 24. 18.01.2010 Heard Ms. Mallika Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal was filed as a first appeal in 1996 against judgment dated 20.12.1995 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.134/1994 whereby the application of respondent, husband of the appellant for divorce has been allowed on the ground of cruelty, desertion and non consummation of marriage. Subsequently, in the light of a Full Bench judgment, the appeal was labeled as a Miscellaneous Appeal bearing it present number 777 of 2009. Ms. Mallika Majumdar was heard for the purpose of passing appropriate orders under order 41 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was confusion with regard to subsequent dates fixed for hearing of the Matrimonial Case and therefore the appellant could not appear and participate in hearing of the case after the efforts for - 2 - reconciliation made by the Family Court failed. The order-sheet discloses that the appellant was personally present in Court on 15.12.1995 and in presence of her husband she made it clear to the Court that she was not willing to live with her husband and this led to failure of efforts for reconciliation. On that date itself the next date for hearing was fixed and mentioned in the order-sheet but the appellant did not appear either to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant/respondent or to examine any witness on her behalf. No material has been pointed out to show any illegality or error in the judgment passed by the Family Court. It is clear from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that marriage has indeed broken down irrevocably and the appellant and respondent have led separate lives for the last fourteen years. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and hence it is dismissed summarily but without costs. perwez (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)