IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.589 of 2009 1. BHUPAL BHARTI S/O LATE SARYUG SAH R/O VILL.- HANUMAN NAGAR, P.O & P.S.- BELDOUR, DISTT.- KHAGARIA ........Appellant Versus 1. DR. SHAIL KUMARI W/O BHUPAL BHARTI, D/O LATE BALDEV PD. SAHU READER IN DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, L.S. COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF TARANG BHAWAN, MOHALLA- SHANKAR NAGAR, P.O. & P.S.- MITHANPURA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR .........Respondent ----------- 5 17-03-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgement of the Family Court dated 4-9-2009 whereby Matrimonial Case No. 68 of 2004 filed by the respondent Smt. Dr. Shail Kumari has been allowed and her prayer for dissolution of marriage by grant of decree of divorce has been accepted. The appellant is the husband and as per case of the respondent he had indulged in cruelty, desertion, adultery and had married one Phul Kumari during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent. The judgement under appeal shows in paragraph 6 that the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed more than three years back and throughout the trial the appellant (Opposite Party in the suit) adopted delaying tactics. Time petitions were filed on regular intervals. Several times the petitions were allowed on costs. Inspite of sufficient opportunity only a single witness was examined on his behalf who is elder brother of the appellant. By way of last chance he was granted opportunity to produce further evidence by order dated 17-12-2008. Though he filed attendance but inspite of repeated calls he did not appear and hence, the 2 evidence was closed. Thereafter he filed petition to recall the previous order which was allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. He paid the cost and produced one witness but ultimately he filed time petition and failed to produce other witness. Again his evidence was closed and the case was posted for argument. Thereafter on every date time petition was filed on one ground or the other. These petitions were never moved. Then he filed a petition for grant of time for filing revision before the High Court. Inspite of adjournments no details of any revision petition was furnished and only time petition was filed. In these circumstances, in absence of any order of stay of proceedings from the superior Court, learned Family Court disposed of the suit which had become more than five years old. In view of aforesaid facts recorded by the learned Family Court, we find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that appellant was not given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and defend the suit. We agree with the finding of the Family Court that the appellant was only adopting delaying tactics. The next submission on behalf of the appellant is that finding on issue No. 4 is erroneous and only on the basis of evidence of the respondent (applicant) and one another witness, alleging second marriage of the appellant with one Phul Kumari, the finding should not have been given against the appellant. We have gone through the discussion of materials made in paragraph 7 3 of the judgement under appeal. We find that for deciding issue No.4 the entire relevant materials have been considered. The same includes an exhibit which is certified copy of the voters list of the year 2004 which shows that after the name of appellant at serial No. 718 the name of Phul Kumari is mentioned at serial No. 719 showing her to be wife of the appellant. In our view the learned Family Court has come to correct finding that the respondent-applicant has proved her case of cruelty, desertion and adultery. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed summarily but without any order as to costs. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.)