Back
2006 Supreme(Pat) 1099
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mridula Mishra, J.
Rajesh Kumar Alias Pappu Kumar
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Singh
Civil Revision No. 1895 of 2006 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 2006
Non-compliance with procedural rules, specifically Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules, can result in the setting aside of court orders.
Headnote:
Rule 10(3) - Jurisdictional Issue - The court set aside the impugned order for violation of Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, which requires evidence in such applications to be given by affidavit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to set aside an order granting leave and admitting a divorce case, alleging violation of Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without compliance with Rule 10(3) and therefore set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration and order in accordance with the law.
Issues: Violation of Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order was set aside due to non-compliance with Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules, which requires evidence in such applications to be given by affidavit.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, for reconsideration and passing order in accordance with the law.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1.
2. This application has been filed for setting aside the order, dated 17.10.2006, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, in Matrimonial Case No. 34 of 2006 whereby the leave has been granted and the Matrimonial Case No. 34 of 2006 has been admitted. Matrimonial Case No. 34 of 2006 was filed within five days of the marriage in the Court of Principal Judge. Family Court, Begusarai. u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Acl. A petition for permission to present the divorce petition under proviso to sec. 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed. The petitioner, who is brother-in-law of opposite party No. 2, intervened in the matter as in the divorce petition allegation of adultery has been made against the wife with his bahnoi, who is the petitioner in this civil revision application and intervenor before the Court below. Intervention application was allowed, simultaneously leave has also been granted and suit has been admitted, by the impugned order, which is uder challenge in this revision application.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 10(3) of the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act. Rule 10, Sub-rule (3) provides that the Court will direct that the evidence in such application may be given by affidavit. In the present case, no such evidence was there, only on the basis of bald allegations made in the petition. Divorce case has been admitted and leave has been granted to file a divorce case within the statutory period of one year, on the ground of adultery.
4. Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the petition was affidavited as provided under Rule 10 of the Patna High Court Rule and another affidavit was also there which is deemed to be the evidence on affidavit. Under Rule 10(3) of the Rule, no such affidavit is there.
5. Considering the fact that provision has not been complied the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. This application is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, for reconsideration and passing order in accordance with law as provided under Rule 10 Sub-rules (2) and (3) of the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act.
