I.A. ANSARI, J.

1. Whether dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court against an order, passed in an appeal arising out of a decree granted for judicial separation, bar a petition for review of the appellate decree, whereby the decree for judicial separation stood set aside? Subsequent to the granting of decree for judicial separation, when a marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce and one of the parties after the decree of divorce had solemnized his marriage and fathered children, whether these facts are relevant for consideration at the time, when an appellate Court considers the sustainability of the decree for judicial separation? What are the fall out or the effect, when a person, having received the decree for judicial separation applies, for divorce, the decree for dissolution is granted and he remarries and fathers children? Whether these facts are relevant for consideration, in an appeal, which arises out of the decree for judicial separation, and whether these facts, if relevant, have a bearing on outcome of appeal? Whether such a development, which is subsequent to the granting of a decree for judicial separation, is an aspect, which must necessarily be taken into account by appellate Court before it chooses to interfere with the decree for judicial separation? These are, amongst others, some of the important questions, which the present review petition has raised.

2. The material facts, which have given rise to the present review application, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(i) The petitioner-husband made an application, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. This application gave rise to Matrimonial Case No. 567 of 2007, in the Family Court, Patna. Attempts made for conciliation, during the course of matrimonial proceeding having failed on 25.04.2008, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, made, on 22.07.2008, an interim order restraining the parties, i.e., the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife, from visiting each other’s house during the pendency of the matrimonial proceeding unless they allow each other’s visit to their respective houses with free consent.

(ii) The respondent-wife herein challenged the order, dated 22.07.2008, before this Court in Civil Revision No.1181 of 2008. However, this Court, on 12.01.2009, while declining to interfere with the order, dated 22.07.2008, directed the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, to dispose of the matrimonial proceedings within three months.

(iii) Finally, the matrimonial proceedings culminated into a decree, dated 11.08.2009, for judicial separation instead of dissolution of marriage. As many as 14 (fourteen) instances of cruelty by the wife were cited in the matrimonial proceedings and 6 (six) more grounds of cruelty were evinced during the course of the evidence in support of the order of judicial separation passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The respondent-wife, thereafter, filed Misc. Appeal No.513 of 2009 against the decree for judicial separation, dated 11.08.2009. During the pendency of Misc. Appeal No.513 of 2009, this Court, too, made efforts for reconciliation in Misc. Appeal No. 513 of 2009, but the same failed.

(iv) A period of one year having elapsed since the decree for judicial separation had been passed and as there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year since after passing of the decree for judicial separation, the petitioner-husband instituted Matrimonial Case No. 646 of 2010, in the Family Court, Patna, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1-A)(i) of the Act on the ground that there was no cohabitation between the parties for the past one year since after the decree for judicial separation was passed.

(v) At the instance of the respondent-wife, the said Matrimonial Case N