ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Deepak Khanchandani, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for Opponent No.2, on an advance copy.

2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed seeking review/recall of the order dated 17.08.2023 in Special Civil Application No.13981 of 2023 on the ground that observations made that proceedings of dissolution of marriage are pending, is factually incorrect and as on date, there are no proceedings pending seeking dissolution of marriage. Learned advocate for the petitioner therefore requested that the order may be recalled and the petition may be listed for fresh hearing.

3. It was case of the petitioner in earlier in SCA 13981 of 2023 that respondent no.4 herein is an employee of respondent no. 2 Corporation, and working with respondent No.1 School run by Corporation. Without dissolution of first marriage with the petitioner, respondent No.4 had married for the second time and second marriage being illegal, action is required to be taken by Corporation for his misconduct. The SCA 13981 of

2023, was rejected with following observation:

“4. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that for the strained relationship between petitioner and respondent No.4, the appropriate proceeding seeking dissolution of marriage is pending before the Court of Law. In the applications dated 22.3.2016, 3.4.2018 and 18.5.2022 of the petitioner, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the request that the appropriate legal action is required against respondent No.4 in relation to his service. This Court is of the opinion that for dissolution of marriage the proceedings are pending before the Court of law, where respondent No.4’s, second marriage is one of the grounds. Therefore, no interference is required. Further, since respondents are discharging their duties as public officer, the relief prayed by the petitioner, in the opinion of this court, is not within the purview of duty as public officer. Therefore, no directions can be issued as prayed for.”

4. Order dated 17.08.2023, was subject matter of appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.1220 of 2023 and the same was rejected.

5. Advance copy of MCA was directed to be served to Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate, who appears for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

6. Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate upon instruction from respondent No.2 submitted that averments made in the petition that respondent No.4 is no longer required to be continued in service of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on account of having entered into second marriage being illegal, the said aspect has not been considered despite repeated request and representation made to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is factually incorrect. Representation made by the petitioner in relation to second marriage of respondent No.4- employee, was considered and explanation was called for. In response respondent No.4 presented Talaknama, stated to be served through Rp.A.D. Talaknama and explanation of respondent No.4 is placed on record. Further, as per instruction given, Talaknama is not challenged till date, however proceedings, in relation to the maintenance are pending.

7. Be that as it may. This application if filed to correct the fact recorded that proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage are pending. However, it cannot be ignored that proceedings seeking maintenance is pending before appropriate Court. Reliance placed by learned advocate for the petitioner that even under Muslim Law, second marriage is prohibited. In the opinion of this Court prohibition of second marriage under Muslim Law is not the subject matter of the petition, in which review was sought.

8. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error apparent on record, which would ultimately alter the outcome of the order dated 17.08.2023 in Special Civil Application No.13981 of 2023, no interference is called for and therefore, the present application for review is rejected.

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)

DIPTI PATEL...