RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter (revision petition No. 192/2020) was listed before this Court in regard to service of respondent No. 2- wife, but the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband insisted that the matter may be heard finally at this stage, without service upon the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Ordinarily, the Court could not have accepted such a request, but on a perusal of the record as well as upon hearing the preliminary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of service upon respondent No. 2 was not felt necessary, as on merits, the matter was tilting in favour of the respondent No. 2-wife.

(3.) As regards Misc. Petition No. 3559/2021, the previous order-sheets shows that Mr. D.K. Gaur, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2-wife. However, today on 23/5/2022, when the matter was listed, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. -2 wife, even in the second round.