Allahabad High Court
RAJNI MISHRAversusPANKAJ RAJHANS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable because the order does not adversely affect the appellant and she lacks jurisdiction to challenge it.
Summary
The appellant, Rajni Mishra, filed an appeal against a trial court order that dismissed her husband’s divorce suit filed under the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty. She argued that the order adversely affected her because her husband had remarried during their subsistence of marriage and that she would be forced to live with him. The court noted that the appellant had neither filed a counter‑claim in the original suit nor a separate divorce petition on the ground of bigamy. Consequently, the court held that the order did not directly affect the appellant and she lacked jurisdiction to maintain the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed as not maintainable. A separate application for condoning a 57‑day delay in filing the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant has jurisdiction to maintain an appeal against the trial court order dismissing the husband’s divorce suit
- Whether the order adversely affects the appellant and thus gives rise to a right of appeal
Legislation cited
Subjects
- delay condonation
- appeal maintainability
- jurisdiction
- Hindu Marriage Act
- divorce
- cruelty
- bigamy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 531 of 2026
Rajni Mishra
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Pankaj Rajhans
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. Nil of 2026
1. Application is filed for condoning the delay of 57 days in filing the
appeal.
2. In view of what has been stated in the application, the delay is
condoned.
3. The delay condonation application is allowed.
4. Office is requested to allot regular number to the appeal.
Re : Order on the Appeal
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by
the judgement and order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned trial
court.
2. The appellant before this Court is the wife. The husband had filed a
Hindu Marriage Act case before the court of the Addl. Principal Family
Court Judge, Varanasi against the appellant herein for grant of divorce
predominantly on the grounds of cruelty. The case of the husband was
dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order. The appellant-
wife has challenged the said order on the ground that the respondent-
FAPLD No. 531 of 2026
2
husband though the judgement debtor, would get the benefit as the
appellant would have to live with him. She further says that the learned
trial court did not consider the fact that the respondent had married a
second time during the subsistence of his marriage with the appellant
herein. This Court asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether the
appellant had filed a counter claim before the learned trial court in the
case filed against her by the respondent-husband or if she had ever filed a
separate case for divorce on the ground of bigamy. Learned counsel has
answered in the negative to both the queries.
3. Under the circumstances, the appellant does not have the jurisdiction to
maintain the present appeal as the order passed by the learned trial
court does not adversely affect her, but her husband the respondent herein
and this Court is unaware whether the respondent has filed an appeal
against the impugned order.
4. Under the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
May 18, 2026
Gaurav Kuls
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…