(1) SA. 1005.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1005 OF 2004 Anil S/o Raghunath Bagul Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, R/o 7/A, Nehru Nagar, Ramanath Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon .. Appellant VERSUS Mrs. Shobha w/o Anil Bagul Age : 44 years, Occu.: Household, and Tailoring work, R/o C/o. Dattatraya Digambar Soni, Near Bank of Baroda at Post Vyara Taluka Vyara, Dist. Surat, State of Gujrat .. Respondent Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the Appellant None present for the respondent though served ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 5TH MAY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard Mr. Talhar. The unsuccessful husband in the matrimonial proceedings seeking divorce from his wife in terms of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is in the Second Appeal. 2] Wife Smt. Shobha, though served, did not participate. The subsequent efforts to ensure her presence, to enable to work out the controversy also (2) SA. 1005.2004 did not yield any fruits. I quite see the endeavour of Mr. Talhar to ensure amicable disposal of the matter, as it revolves to the matrimonial controversies however, the slackness demonstrated by the wife cannot further be countenanced. It is a matter of record, atleast from 1992 till this date, the parties have virtually severed their relations. 3] The grounds on which the husband sought divorce, about demand by in-laws, to meet the marriage expenses of younger daughter of the in-laws, were found to be figment of imagination. The reasons assigned seeking divorce, were not in tune of the settled position of law. 4] Both the Courts did not agree that the wife was at fault, providing mileage to the husband to have recourse to section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce. In the result, the findings do not project any substantial question of law. Before parting, the parties shall also take into consideration the well being of their son Tejas maintained by the wife. Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp