IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.96 of 2010 MADHUBALA SINHA @ RENU SRIVASTAVA @ RENU Versus SUDHIR KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----------- 3 08.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, both on the limitation petition as well as on merits. The delay is only of 12 days and, hence, not of much consequence. However, in view of the fact that on going through the materials on the record and the order under appeal, we found no merit in this appeal, hence, no separate order need be passed in the limitation petition for which unnecessarily notice will have to be issued to the other side. On merit the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Golpalganj on 17th December 2009 dismissing the Misc. case filed by the appellant bearing No. 10 of 2008 is a short but absolutely clear order. It shows that the instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) each which were payable in April and May 2008 have been admittedly paid to the appellant which is acknowledged by filing application on 4th December 2008 which bears her signature as well as signature of her lawyers and on that basis the process for realization of the money totaling Rs.2,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony was recalled. After several months, on 29th July 2009 the present application was filed claiming that the appellant had no knowledge about the petition filed on her behalf on 4th December 2008. Learned court below has considered not only the signature of the appellant and her lawyer which tallied with her signature on other documents, such as deposition, but also considered all the relevant circumstances for coming to a conclusion that she had filed a petition dated 29th July 2009 with some ulterior motive. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limini. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( C. M. Prasad, J )