Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

Evaluating the Efficacy of the PWDVA: Legal Impact Study

ABSTRACT The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) played a pivotal step in India’s legislative response in an attempt to confront...
HomeHigh CourtPatna High CourtAnupma Kumari vs Gopal Kumar on 23 February, 2026

Anupma Kumari vs Gopal Kumar on 23 February, 2026


Patna High Court

Anupma Kumari vs Gopal Kumar on 23 February, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Miscellaneous Appeal No.186 of 2025
======================================================
Anupma Kumari daughter of Chandra Mauli Sharma, Resident of Village-
Belbanna, Ward No.- 5 (Paschmi Pandarak) and P.S.- Pandarak, District-
Patna.

                                                           ... ... Appellant/s
                                 Versus
Gopal Kumar, S/o Vijay Singh, through his Guardian and father Sri Vijay
Singh, Resident of Village- Harauli, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna, at present
residing at Mohalla- Shahjanand Nagar, Right of State Bank of India Branch
Barh, District- Patna.

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s    :      Mr.Jnanchandra Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN)

Date : 23-02-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025.

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed

under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking

impleadment of the father of the respondent as Respondent No.

2 in the present Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

sole respondent is a person of unsound mind and, therefore,

ought to be represented through a guardian for the purpose of

the proceedings. It is further submitted that the negotiations
Patna High Court MA No.186 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
2/5

relating to the marriage, including matters concerning dowry

and settlement, were conducted between the father of the

appellant and the father of the respondent. On that basis, it is

contended that the father of the respondent is a necessary party

and should be impleaded in the Memo of Appeal.

4. In view of this Court, the grounds urged for

impleadment of the respondent’s father as Respondent No. 2 are

legally unsustainable for the following reasons. Firstly, the

present Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of Matrimonial Case

No. 1363 of 2022 instituted by the appellant. In the said

matrimonial proceeding, the father of the respondent was not a

party, the dispute being exclusively between the husband and

the wife. Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

explicitly provides that a petition for dissolution of marriage by

a decree of divorce may be presented only by either the husband

or the wife. Therefore, a third party, including the father of

either spouse, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to such

proceedings. Secondly, the appellant herself has taken the plea

that the respondent is a person of unsound mind and that such

condition existed even at the time of institution of the

matrimonial (divorce) case in the year 2022. Order XXXII of

the Code of Civil Procedure governs suits by or against minors
Patna High Court MA No.186 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
3/5

and persons of unsound mind. In particular, Order XXXII Rule

15 CPC provides as follows:

“[15. Rules 1 to 14 (Except rule 2A) to apply to
persons of unsound mind.–Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so
far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the
pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to
persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on
enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of
protecting their interest when suing being sued.]”

Meaning thereby, any suit by or against a person of

unsound mind is required to be instituted and prosecuted

through a duly appointed next friend or guardian, in accordance

with the provisions of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

5. In the present case, it transpires that the

matrimonial (divorce) proceeding was neither instituted through

a next friend nor was the present Miscellaneous Appeal filed in

compliance with the said mandatory procedure.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the defect

goes to the root of the matter. In such circumstances, the present

interlocutory application cannot be entertained or allowed at the

appellate stage, particularly when the original matrimonial

proceeding itself was not conducted through a next friend as

required under law.

7. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application is

hereby dismissed.

Patna High Court MA No.186 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
4/5

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 02 of 2025.

8. The present interlocutory application has been filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking

condonation of a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal.

9. However, from the stamp report, it transpires that

the present appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of

limitation. In light of the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in MA No. 474 of 2021 (Ranju

Devi vs. Chitranjan Singh), it has been held that the period of

limitation in matrimonial matters arising out of disputes from

marriage before this Hon’ble Court shall be 90 days instead of

30 days.

10. As such, the present interlocutory application does

not survive for consideration and need not be pressed.

11. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application

stands dismissed as not pressed.

Re. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 186 of 2025.

12. Upon perusal of the judgment under challenge, it

transpires to this Court that the matrimonial (divorce) case was

instituted against a person alleged to be of unsound mind

without adherence to the mandatory provisions contained in

Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs
Patna High Court MA No.186 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
5/5

proceedings by or against minors and persons of unsound mind.

The suit appears to have been decreed ex parte.

13. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant

any relief to the appellant, as the appeal itself is not

maintainable in law. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous

Appeal is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

( Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          26/02/2026
Transmission Date       NA
 



Source link