IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.542 of 2009 6 31.3.2010 Smriti Kumari, wife of Rajeev Kumar, resident of Mohalla New Area, Nazirpur in front of Krishna Talkies, P.S. town, District Muzaffarpur, at present residing with her father S/o Satya Prakash Singh, Mohalla New Area Nazirpur, Akharaghat Road, P.S. town, District Muzaffarpur ..... Appellant / Applicant VERSUS Rajeev Kumar, son of late Laxmi Prasad Gupta, resident of New Area Nazirpur in front of Krishna Talkies, P.W. Town, District Muzafarpur .... Respondent / Opposite Party. -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant in respect of limitation petition (I.A. NO.585 of 2010) seeking condonation of delay of four days in preferring this appeal and also on merits of the appeal. On the limitation, it has been submitted that the Stamp Reporter did not find the appeal barred by limitation but the office has raised objection on the ground of delay. In view of nature of proposed order, we do not feel the necessity of issuing any notice either in the limitation or in the appeal. By the order under appeal dated 19.8.2009, the Principal Judge, Family Court has recorded that in course of reconciliation both the parties appeared in the court in 2 camera and agreed to live together and in view of categorical stand of the appellant, who was the applicant seeking divorce, the matrimonial suit was disposed of on the basis of reconciliation. Further order-sheet appended to the memorandum of appeal, shows that later on, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant retracting from her earlier statement on the ground that she was not allowed to read her statement and was ordered to put her signature thereupon. The learned Principal Judge has recorded in the order that after several sittings of both the parties, the case was disposed of on reconciliation and the petitioner had clearly stated in English on her statement that she had read and found the statement correct. He has further recorded that when she went out of the court there was some quarrel outside the court and after sometime she filed a petition but did not appear before the court. The prayer for re- recording her statement was rejected because the matrimonial case has already been disposed of on the basis of reconciliation. Another order passed later, on the same date i.e. 19.8.2009 shows that a petition was also filed on 3 behalf of respondent Rajeev Kumar that after the reconciliation order was passed by the court and the parties came out of the court room, some persons including relations of the appellant allegedly assaulted the respondent and forcibly took the appellant with them. That petition was also merely kept on the record. On bare perusal of the subsequent orders, we find that the true facts have been disclosed by the Principal Judge and there is no scope of accepting the stand of the appellant that there was no actual reconciliation and her statement was wrongly recorded. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if the appellant finds on a cool and careful consideration that the marriage cannot be made to work and she must seek divorce then she would be at liberty to file another matrimonial suit seeking divorce in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) sk