Prashant Kumar Jha v. Smt. Sunaina Devi@Sonena Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No. 2126 of 2008 ====================================================== Prasant Kumar Jha, Son of Late Sitaram Jha, resident of Village Bariyahi, P.O. & P.S. Bangaon District Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Sunaina Devi @ Soni @ Sonena Devi, D/o- Niranjan Mishra, resident of Village Bangaon, P.O. & P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Opposite Party : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-08-2017 No one appears on behalf of the parties even on repeated call.

Perused the record.

This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.10.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2005 by which and whereunder he allowed petition filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act on behalf of the opposite party directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party as expenses of litigation till pendency of above stated case. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that opposite party is not his legally wedded wife and as a matter of fact, he was kidnapped by father of opposite party for

Patna High Court C.R. No.2126 of 2008 (3) dt.31-08-2017 2/2 which Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2004 was registered against the father of opposite party and in that case after submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and accordingly, it is obvious that petitioner denied his marriage with opposite party.

It would appear from perusal of the record that aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2005 was filed in the year 2005 and this court vide order dated 07.01.2009 directed the concerned court to dispose of aforesaid matrimonial suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of copy of aforesaid order. It appears to me that above stated matrimonial suit has already been disposed of and that is the reason both parties have left pairvi of this petition.

Moreover, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety into the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U