IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.74 of 2010 ARJUN MAHTO Versus MAMTA DEVI ----------- 4. 13.7.2010. Heard counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1019 of 2010 for condonation of 23 days delay as also on the memo of appeal. We have gone through the judgment under appeal. We are satisfied that no useful purpose shall be served by condoning the delay of approximately 23 days as there is no merit in the appeal itself. In any event no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. The appellant sought divorce from the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds that his wife allegedly had love affair and physical relationship with other boys. The Family Court has observed on consideration of evidence that he has neither disclosed the names of the persons with whom he suspected that his wife had physical relations nor was the allegation specific about the number of persons with whom his wife was said to be indulging in love affair. The relief sought for was full of contradictions. According to him, his mother had seen the 2 persons involved in indecent act with the respondent, yet the appellant did not even produce his mother for recording her evidence. The fact that the respondent may not have appeared despite notice before the court below leading to an ex parte order of dismissal of the prayer for divorce is of no relevance. Only after the appellant had proved his case by evidence did the question of rebuttal by the respondent arise. If the appellant failed to prove his case there was nothing for the respondent to rebutt. The impugned order is well considered, reasoned and discussed on merits. We find no merit in the limitation petition or memo of appeal. Both are accordingly dismissed. ahk (Navin Sinha,J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)