IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1167 of 2008 MITHILESH KUMAR VERMA Versus HARSHRAJ & ANR ----------- 2 20.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner to be impleaded in a divorce suit in a capacity of the father of the wife must be and has been rightly rejected. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to such prayer of the petitioner being added as a party has submitted that the necessity for the petitioner being grandfather (Nana) of the child of the couple, the husband and wife who are parties in the divorce suit has arisen because they have filed an application for mutual divorce by way of mutual consent, without taking any care for the welfare of the child. Unfortunately, this part of the submission of the learned counsel is not in keeping with the terms and conditions of the mutual divorce, a copy whereof, has been produced before this Court. In fact, paragraph no.10 of the terms and conditions of mutual divorce reads as follows:- “10. That the petitioners have mutually agreed with that their child Arshraj shall remain in the custody of his mother i.e. second petitioner. He will spend 2 weeks in a year with his father 2 i.e. first petitioner after attaining the age of 7 years and prior and after that period the first petitioner will have right to meet his son whenever he likes.” Before the Court below however the plea of the petitioner appears to be that his presence in the suit is necessary because his daughter, wife had filed an application for mutual divorce without his consent. If that be the plea, then again the petitioner has no locus standi because his daughter is major married well educated lady and is capable of taking her own decision as would appear from the contents of the application seeking mutual divorce. This Court would also find that the Court below had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to state his case even without being added as a party but all such opportunities given were waisted. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application, being wholly frivolous, must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)