(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
(2.) AS is evident from the record that initially, Ranbir son of Ram Chander and his wife Mukesh (respondent) had instituted the divorce petition (Annexure P1) for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce, by way of mutual consent under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the divorce petition, as luck would have been, Ranbir (husband) had died. Consequently, the District Judge (Family Court) dismissed the divorce petition, as having become infructuous, by virtue of impugned order dated 9.8.2012 (Annexure P3).
(3.) THEREFORE , once, Ranbir (husband) had already died during the pendency of the main divorce petition, then, his mother (petitioner) has neither any locus standi nor the divorce petition (Annexure P1) can be decided in the absence of husband. The District Judge (Family Court) has correctly negated her plea to restore the divorce petition, by way of impugned order (Annexure P5), which, in substance, is as under (para 4) : -