Patna High Court
Sabnam Kumari vs Dhananjay Chawdhary on 6 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.97 of 2016
======================================================
Sabnam Kumari wife of Sri Dhananjay Choudhary, D/O Madhusudan Prasad
Choudhary resident of village - Bajitpur, P.O. Bajpatti, District Sitamarhi,
presently resident of village neemachak Haider, P.S. Chak Mehasi, District
Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Dhananjay Chawdhary son of Late Ramnandan Choudhary, resident of village
Bajitpur, P.S. Bajpatti, District Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Saket Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 06-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant-wife (Sabnam Kumari) has come
up in this appeal against judgment and decree dated
30.04.2015
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Sitamarhi in Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 1998/203
of 2014, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-
husband (Dhananjay Choudhary) under Sections 13(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the 1955 Act’)
seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has
been allowed and divorce stands granted and the respondent
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
2/25
was directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh as permanent alimony to the
appellant within a period of six months.
3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant was
solemnized with respondent on 14th July, 1991 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated;
however, no child was born from the wedlock.
4. The pleaded case of respondent-husband in his
petition under Section 13 (1) of the 1955 Act was that the
marriage with the appellant was arranged one and there was
no exchange of dowry and the same had taken place in a
very simple manner. The respondent, just after marriage,
has found that the attitude and behaviour of the appellant is
very rigid, indifferent and passive towards her husband,
mother-in-law, father-in-law and other in-laws members.
During period of stay of the appellant-wife in her
matrimonial house, she never allowed the respondent-
husband to fulfill the conjugal obligation and consummate
the marriage and after two months of marriage, the
appellant-wife suddenly left her matrimonial house and
went to her parental house and thereafter she developed the
habit of frequently visiting her parental palace as per her
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
3/25
will and without consent of the respondent-husband. The
appellant-wife, thereafter on 22.09.1994 has filed
Complaint Case No. 652 of 1994 under Sections 498(A),
323, 379, 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the
respondent-husband and other in-laws family members with
frivolous allegation of torture and demand of dowry. The
appellant-wife also alleged in the aforesaid complaint that
respondent-husband had killed his first wife for want of
demand of dowry. The respondent-husband appeared in the
aforesaid complaint case and denied all the allegations
levelled against him. In the aforesaid complaint case, on the
order of the learned Court below, the respondent-husband
along with his father went to the parental house of the
appellant-wife for Bidagari but they were illegally detained,
brutally assaulted and respondent-husband was forced to
put his signature on the blank paper for which the
respondent-husband has filed Chak Mehsi P.S. Case No. 44
of 1998 under Sections 386, 364, 365, 342 and other allied
sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. It is further alleged that appellant-wife on
24.06.1998 came along with several unknown persons at the
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
4/25
residence of the respondent-husband, stayed for few hours
and thereafter committed loot in the house of the
respondent-husband after overpowering the members of the
family for which Bajidpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 1998 has
been registered against the appellant’s side. The
actions/misdeeds of the appellant have caused great torture
and harassment in the mind of the respondent. The appellant
has repeatedly voiced that she has no interest in leading
conjugal life with the respondent, rather she wants to break
all sorts of relation with him. This causes enormous pain
and grief in the mind of the respondent and he found that in
spite of giving best possible love and affection, there was no
change in her behaviour towards him, his parents, relations
and friends. The appellant always avoided to make physical
relation with the respondent which is nothing but a grave
cruelty with the respondent. The appellant has left the
society and company of the respondent and went to her
Maike on March, 1994. The matrimonial relation between
the appellant and respondent has already irretrievably
broken down and there is no hope of restoration of their
conjugal life.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
5/25
5. The appellant-wife appeared and filed her
written statement on 26.02.2005 stating therein that she was
married to the respondent on 14-07-1991 in which the
father of appellant-wife and other relatives gave domestic
articles as a gift worth Rs. 1 lakh. After marriage, the
appellant learnt from the family member that her husband
was previously married with one lady namely, Sudha
Kumari but later on, she was burnt to death by the
respondent-husband. The appellant also came to know that
her husband (respondent) was having illicit relationship
with one Abha Singh. The further contention of the
appellant-wife is that after 10 to 15 days of her marriage,
her husband, his brother and brother’s wife started torturing
her and putting pressure to bring motorcycle, V.C.R. Fridge
and cash of Rs.1 Lakh from her father. They used to treat
the appellant-wife worst than a servant and also used to
compel to perform all the domestic work of the family,
failing which, they used to assault her and stop providing
food and clothes. Ultimately on 15-01-1992, the father of
the appellant brought her to his house. Due to the social
pressure, on 13-7-1993 the respondent and some of his
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
6/25
family members came at the house of her father and
tendered apology and asked for Bidagari for the purpose of
celebrating the marriage anniversary on 14-07-1993, but
they did not leave their dowry demand. The appellant-wife
went her Sasural on on 14-07-1993 but again the appellant
was tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It has
been further contended that at several time, the she was
compelled to commit suicide, and ultimately on 18-08-1994
at about 2 P.M. the appellant-wife was brutally assaulted,
her belongings were snatched and she was dragged-out
from her matrimonial house. The appellant-wife thereafter
filed Complaint Case No. 652 of 1994 on 22.09.1994 under
Sections 498(A), 323, 379, 406 of the Indian Penal Code
against her husband and other family members in which the
respondent was sent to jail. The respondent-husband, in
order to put pressure, has filed Complaint Case No. 306 of
1998 against the appellant, her father and brother which was
later on registered as Chak Mehsi P.S. Case No. 44 of 1998
The brother of the respondent-husband has also filed
Bajidpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 1998 against the appellant’s
side to put pressure. The appellant-wife, therefore prayed
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
7/25
that the petition filed by the respondent-husband for
dissolution of marriage does not have any leg to stand and it
should be dismissed.
6. In view of facts and circumstances and
materials available on record learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sitamarhi held that the appellant-wife has
treated her husband with mental cruelty. It has further been
held that appellant-wife has deserted respondent-husband
for not less than two years continuously preceding the
immediate date of presentation of the suit and accordingly
the suit has been decreed on contest under Sections 13 (1)
of the Act and accordingly the marriage solemnized on
14.07.1991 between the parties was dissolved on the ground
of cruelty and desertion and the respondent-husband was
directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh to the appellant-wife as
permanent alimony. The appellant-wife, aggrieved by the
said judgment of the learned Family Court filed the instant
appeal before this Court.
7. The divorce has been granted on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion. A perusal of the Impugned judgment
would show that the following acts of cruelty and desertion
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
8/25
were considered by the Family Court, as proved:-
a) Cruelty:
(i) From oral and documentary evidence, it is
evident that the couple got married about seven years back.
The marriage took place on 14.07.1991 and they are
residing separately w.e.f. 18.08.1994.
(ii) Admittedly, the parties got separated on
18.08.1994 and the appellant-wife had filed a criminal case
bearing Complaint Case No. 652 of 1994.
(iii) The appellant-wife in her written statement
has not been able to give any specific instance of
maltreatment on account of demand of dowry or alleged
cruelty and in absence thereof, it was inferred that the
appellant-wife had taken undue advantage of her position as
a wife and had dragged respondent-husband and his family
members into unnecessary litigation by getting false
complaint lodged against them.
(iv) The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Jagbir Singh v.
Nisha“, (2015) 9 RCR (Civil) 873, “Rishipal v. Luxmi
Devi”, (2009) 4 RCR (Civil) 811, “Dharampal v. Smt.
Pushpa Devi”, 2004 RCR (Civil) 717, “Major Ashish
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
9/25
Poonia Mrs. Nilima Poonia”; “Mangayakarasi v. M.
Yuvaraj” (2020) 3 SCC 786, “K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.
Deepa“, (2013) 5 SCC 226 and “K. Srinivas v. K. Suneetha”
(2014) 16 SCC 34, has held that making unfounded
allegations and filing false complaints against the spouse or
his relatives amount to cruelty to the other spouse and held
that acquittal of respondent-husband and his mother in
criminal case filed by appellant in fact goes to show that
respondent-husband has indeed faced matrimonial cruelties
at the hands of appellant-wife.
(v) It was observed by the Family Court that the
couple have been living separately for about seven years
and this long separation has in fact put them in such a
situation that matrimonial bond has broken down beyond
repair. It was further observed that there are no chances of
the couple living together and such a marriage is now
unworkable and can be a source of great misery for the
parties, if allowed to be continued.
8. Accordingly, it was concluded that the
respondent-husband has been able to prove the ground of
cruelty.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
10/25
b) Desertion:
(i) The Family Court observed that the allegation
of the appellant-wife that she has been shunted out of
matrimonial house due to demand of dowry has not been
proved. She has filed Complaint Case No. 652 of 1994
against respondent-husband and his family members with
false allegations. There was no effort on the part of
appellant-wife to return to fold of respondent-husband. She
had deserted respondent only after three years of marriage
and during this span of seven years, there was no effort on
part of the appellant-wife to return to respondent-husband.
(ii) It was concluded that the appellant-wife had
put the relationship to a permanent end and had not joined
the respondent-husband. She has not filed any case under
Section 9 of the 1955 Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
Hence, it is evident that the factum of separation, intention
to bring cohabitation to a permanent end, goes to establish
that appellant-wife has deserted respondent-husband
without reasonable cause continuously for a period of more
than two years. Thus, respondent-husband proved the
ground of desertion.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
11/25
9. In the aforementioned circumstances, present
appeal has been filed before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits
that the learned Family Court has erred in law and facts in
allowing the divorce petition filed by the respondent-
husband. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
divorce petition has wrongly been allowed on the ground of
cruelty, rather the appellant-wife had been treated with
cruelty at her matrimonial home and she had only availed
her legal remedies by filing cases as regards the cruelty
meted out to her and also as regards the demand of dowry
by the respondent-husband and his family members,
however the same have been wrongly taken against the
appellant. It is further submitted that the Family Court has
wrongly concluded that the appellant had deserted the
respondent-husband, whereas it was the respondent, who
had compelled the appellant-wife to leave her matrimonial
home.
11. It is further submitted that on 12.04.2002, the
appellant-wife has filed a petition under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance as well as
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
12/25
litigation cost which was allowed on 14.12.2004 whereby
interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month was granted
with effect from 12.04.2002 and a litigation cost of Rs.
5000/- was also allowed in favour of the appellant-wife.
The said order of maintenance dated 14.12.2004 was
challenged in Civil Revision No. 545 of 2005. However, on
21.05.2005, when the matter was heard, the Court was not
inclined to grant any indulgence and hence the respondent
withdrew the revision petition with a liberty to file a
review/recall petition before learned Court below against
the order dated 14.12.2004. The respondent-husband again
filed a petition on 21.06.2005 under Section 151 Cr.P.C for
recall of the order dated 14.12.2004. The learned 1 st
Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi vide order dated
11.07.2005 had rejected the petition for recall of the order
dated 14.04.2004 but stayed the proceedings of the
Matrimonial Suit till the payment of maintenance amount
and litigation cost. Aggrieved by the said order dated
11.07.2005, the respondent-husband filed Civil Revision
No. 1841 of 2005 before this Court. The Hon’ble Court
adjourned the aforesaid revision application for two weeks
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
13/25
to inform the Court in view of the breakdown of the
marriage whether they were agreeable to divorce by mutual
consent. The appellant-wife appeared through her counsel
but without consent of the appellant, her counsel agreed that
both the parties will file a petition for mutual divorce in
view of the fact that the marriage seems to have been
broken irretrievably. It was therefore directed that the
impugned order will be kept in abeyance up to the final
order when a decree is to be passed in accordance with the
agreement as stated above and such agreement never filed.
The appellant thereafter filed Civil Review No. 143 of
2006. A coordinate Bench of this Court has held that civil
review was not maintainable and the appellant was directed
to approach before appropriate forum with regard to
question of interim maintenance under Section 24 or
permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. The Matrimonial Suit filed for dissolution of marriage
was taken up for ex-parte hearing wherein some false and
fabricated evidence was produced by the respondent on the
basis of which the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2015
was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
14/25
12. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant, respondent and perused the paper-book as well as
the impugned judgment.
13. The following question arises for consideration
before this Court: “Whether the decree for divorce granted
on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the Family
Court, requires interference?”
14. In “Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi“, (2008)
10 SCC 497, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the scope of interference by first appellate court, observed
as under:-
“24. It is no doubt true that the High
Court was exercising power as first
appellate court and hence it was open to the
Court to enter into not only questions of law
but questions of fact as well. It is settled law
that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An
appeal thus is a re-hearing of the main
matter and the appellate court can re-
appraise, re-appreciate and review the entire
evidence “oral as well as documentary” and
can come to its own conclusion.
25. At the same time, however, the
appellate court is expected, nay bound, to
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
15/25bear in mind a finding recorded by the trial
court on oral evidence. It should not forget
that the trial court had an advantage and
opportunity of seeing the demeanour of
witnesses and, hence, the trial court’s
conclusions should not normally be
disturbed. No doubt, the appellate court
possesses the same powers as that of the
original court, but they have to be exercised
with proper care, caution and
circumspection. When a finding of fact has
been recorded by the trial court mainly on
appreciation of oral evidence, it should not
be lightly disturbed unless the approach of
the trial court in appraisal of evidence is
erroneous, contrary to well-established
principles of law or unreasonable…”
15. Further, the concept of cruelty within the
meaning of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act
has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
“Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar“,
(2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289, by observing as under: –
“10. For considering dissolution
of marriage at the instance of a spouse
who allege mental cruelty, the result of
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
16/25such mental cruelty must be such that it is
not possible to continue with the
matrimonial relationship. In other words,
the wronged party cannot be expected to
condone such conduct and continue to live
with his/her spouse. The degree of
tolerance will vary from one couple to
another and the Court will have to bear in
mind the background, the level of
education and also the status of the parties,
in order to determine whether the cruelty
alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of
marriage, at the instance of the wronged
party…”
16. In “Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh“, (2007) 4
SCC 511, Hon’ble Supreme Court gave illustrative cases
where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even
while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid
down and each case will have to be decided on its own
facts.
“85. No uniform standard can ever be
laid down for guidance, yet we deem it
appropriate to enumerate some instances
of human behaviour which may be relevant
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
17/25in dealing with the cases of ‘mental
cruelty’. The instances indicated in the
succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete
matrimonial life of the parties, acute
mental pain, agony and suffering as would
not make possible for the parties to live
with each other could come within the
broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the
entire matrimonial life of the parties, it
becomes abundantly clear that situation is
such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection
cannot amount to cruelty, frequent
rudeness of language, petulance of manner,
indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the
other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind.
The feeling of deep anguish,
disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long
time may lead to mental cruelty.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
18/25
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to torture,
discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct
and behaviour of one spouse actually
affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of
and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct,
studied neglect, indifference or total
departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental
health or deriving sadistic pleasure can
also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more
than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness,
which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may
not be a ground for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels,
normal wear and tear of the married life
which happens in day to day life would not
be adequate for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
19/25
(x) The married life should be
reviewed as a whole and a few Isolated
instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be
persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an
extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party
finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for
an operation of sterilisation without
medical reasons and without the consent or
knowledge of his wife and similarly if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion
without medical reason or without the
consent or knowledge of her husband, such
an act of the spouse may lead to mental
cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to
have Intercourse for considerable period
without there being any physical incapacity
or valid reason may amount to mental
cruelty..
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either
husband or wife after marriage not to have
child from the marriage may amount to
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
20/25
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long
period of continuous separation, it may
fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the
law in such cases, does not serve the
sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty…”
17. This Court, vide order dated 12.12.2024 had
directed both the parties to file their assets and liabilities
statement since the appellant has admitted that both sides
are living separately since 1998 and appellant is ready for
one time settlement for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and in
pursuance to the direction of this Court both the appellant
and respondent have filed their assets and liabilities
statements.
18. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude
that respondent-husband has made out ground for grant of
decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
21/25
mentioned in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.”
19. Considering the totality of circumstances, in
our considered view, learned Family Court has rightly
passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the
parties and we see no reason as to why, the findings as
given by the learned trial Court should not be upheld. The
point of determination is answered accordingly.
20. Before we part with this order, it is apposite to
state here that while granting the decree of divorce, without
assessing the assets and liabilities of the parties, learned
Family court has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two Lakhs) to the
respondent-wife towards Permanent Alimony as neither
appellant nor respondent has filed their assets and liabilities
statement in the required format nor it was required by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court while granting
permanent alimony of Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of the
appellant-wife.
21. Here it is useful to refer to Section 25 of the
1955 Act, which reads thus:
“Section 25. Permanent alimony
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
22/25and maintenance: (1) Any Court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may,
at the time of passing any decree or at any
time subsequent thereto, on application
made to it for the purpose by either the
wife or the husband, as the case may be,
order that the respondent shall pay to the
appellant for her or his maintenance and
support such gross sum or such monthly or
periodical sum for a term not exceeding
the life of the applicant as, having regard
to the respondent’s own income and other
property, if any, the income and other
property of the applicant (the conduct of
the parties and other circumstances of the
case), it may seem to the Court to be just,
and any such payment may be secured, if
necessary, by a charge on the immovable
property of the respondent.”
22. In the light of the language used in Section 25
of the 1955 Act, it is clear that claim under Section 25 of the
Act has to be made on an application furnishing all details
regarding his or her own income or other property. Further
an opportunity has to be given to the other side to put forth
his/her defence.
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
23/25
23. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to
each case and is dependent on various circumstances and
factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income
of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of
marriage; their individual social and financial status;
personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual
capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the
quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of
the marriage; period of marriage and such other similar
factors. The grant of permanent alimony should be directed
after assessing the social, financial status of both the parties
and also after appreciating the burden of liabilities incurred
either on husband or wife in light of Hon’ble Supreme
Court decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324 read with Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh
Sharma reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451 read with
Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3678.
24. Be that as it may, Section 25 of the 1955 Act
itself envisages that the wife can initiate proceedings for
grant of permanent alimony even after the decree of
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
24/25
divorce. Therefore, the court does not become functus
officio with the passing of the decree and continues to have
jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter.
25. Accordingly, we deem it fit and proper to
remand the matter back to the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sitamarhi only with regard to decide the
quantum of permanent alimony. The Court below is
expected to direct the appellant-wife and respondent-
husband to file details regarding their assets and liabilities
in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 read with
Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1451 read with Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju
Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678 and after
analyzing their assets and liabilities, pass appropriate order
with regard to the permanent alimony within a period of
three months from the date of passing of the judgment. Both
parties are directed to co-operate in expeditious disposal of
the above matter. In case of non-appearance of either party,
proper order shall be passed in accordance with law.
26. In view of the above discussions, M.A. No. 97
Patna High Court MA No.97 of 2016 dt.06-08-2025
25/25
of 2016 is hereby disposed of.
27. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 26/06/2025 Uploading Date 06/08/2025 Transmission Date N/A