GEETA DEVI Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 17th December, 2012 in HMA No.24/2010 (Unique Case ID No.02402C0020422010) of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] of dissolution of marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act.

(2.) The appeal came up before this Court first on 10th April, 2013 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Vide order of subsequent date, trial court record was requisitioned. The matter remained pending for adjudication of the application of the appellant/wife under Section 25 of the Act and vide common judgment dated 14th January, 2015 in this appeal and in several other appeals, the legal question was decided and applications under Section 25 in each of the case listed separately for adjudication. The order dated 25th August, 2015 records that the parties in this appeal had filed affidavits in terms of judgment dated 14th January, 2015. Vide order dated 14th July, 2016, the parties were referred to Mediation Cell of this Court. Mediation however remained unsuccessful. Efforts were thereafter made in Court also for amicable settlement but which also remained unsuccessful. Vide order dated 2nd February, 2017, the appeal was listed for final hearing. Vide order dated 13th April, 2017, the counsels were directed to file written submissions and which have been filed. The appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time.

(3.) Today, the counsel for the appellant / wife states that both counsels have already filed written arguments. The counsel for the appellant / wife has also been heard qua what he desires to urge. The respondent / husband appearing in person and as identified by the counsel for the appellant / wife states that his advocate is not available. However, the appeal being old and the written arguments of the counsel for the respondent / husband being already on record, it is not deemed appropriate to await the counsel for the respondent / husband. The record has been perused.