SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 390

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAYAL ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL
versus
ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL
Decide on May 6, 1992

Advocates:
C.M.CHOPRA

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13 and 14 – Hardly lived as husband and wife at pune for about seven months when husband Filed a petition Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty alleged "she had a habit of smoking and was found that she was in habit of drinking and even once came drunk to applicants house and abused everybody further alleged "it was found by applicant that she was working as a model prior to marriage and he found few pictures of the respondent in bikini and semi-nude clothes in magazines vehemently denied allegations and claimed that she was a homely, vegetarian, non-smoking teetotaller and faithful housewife Family court at Pune proceededex parte and granted divorce-decree by order application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by Family court – Held, Case realising requirements of natural justice the family court, sent two registered notices to appellant at her Noida address and also at address given by her in proceedings before this court came back with endorsements that the appellant could not be found on given addresses not material on record to reach a conclusion that appellant refused to receive notices also nothing on record to show as to whether the postal authorities made any efforts to deliver registered letters to any of appellants relations at givenaddresses courts below are wholly unjustified in holding that appellant refused to receive notices and further that said notices could have been received by any of her relations on given addresses – Appellant had asked for transfer of her case from some other court and this court gave liberty to appellant to move High court for said purpose satisfied that reasons given by appellant for such transfer and apprehensions entertained by her are wholly unjustified – Principal Judge Family court Pune has taken grievances made by appellant before this court rather seriously and has commented adversely about same – Ordered Accordingly.

Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J

( 1 ) HIS parents advertised for "homely non- medico" bride. Her parents responded. Marriage took place on 24/01/1988 at Noida near Delhi. They hardly lived as husband and wife at pune for about seven months when on 16/08/1988 the husband Filed a petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. He alleged "she had a habit of smoking" and "it was found that she was in the habit of drinking and even once came drunk to the applicants house and abused everybody". He further alleged "it was found by the applicant that she was working as a model prior to marriage and he found few pictures of the respondent in bikini and semi-nude clothes in magazines". She vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that she was a homely, vegetarian, non-smoking, teetotaller and faithful housewife. The Family court at Pune proceededex parte and granted divorce-decree by the order dated 30/11/1989. Wifes application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Family court on 24/06/1990. The High court by its judgment dated October 10/11, 1990 upheld the Findings of the Family court with the modification that in place of decree for dissolution of marriage it granted a decree for judicial separation. This appeal by way of special leave is by the wife against the judgments of the courts below.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the divorce-proceedings before Family court, Pune, the wife filed a petition, on 1/05/1989, before this court seeking transfer of the case from the Family court, Pune to Delhi. This court granted ad interim stay of the proceedings before the Family court, Pune. The stay remained operative till 11/09/1989 when this court dismissed the transfer petition and vacated the stay. There after the husband appeared before the Family court on 15/09/1989 whereas the appellant-wife remained absent. Notices were sent by registered post to the wife on her address at Noida and also at her Delhi address given by her in the proceedings before this court. The notices came back with the remarks "not found". The Family court ordered sub- stituted service and a notice was published in the "times of India" New delhi of dated 24/10/1989 asking the wife to appear before the family court on 16/11/1989 or the proceedings would be taken ex parte. On 16/11/1989 the Family court ordered ex parte proceedings. The issues were framed on 21/11/1989, the evidence of the husband was recorded on 25/11/1989 and the judgment was pronounced on 30/11/1989.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed an application dated 18/12/1989 for setting aside the ex parte divorce-decree wherein she stated that after she was forced to leave her matrimonial-home at Pune) she was residing with her parents at Noida. She further stated that in October/november, 1989 she had gone to reside with her brother at Delhi. According to her she applied to the Army Authorities claiming maintenance out of her husbands salary. Respondent-husband is an Army officer. The Army authorities sent a letter dated 14/12/1989 to her father wherein it was mentioned that his daughters application for maintenance allowance could not be entertained because the husband had already obtained a divorce-decree from the court. A copy of the Family court judgment granting divorce-decree to the husband was also annexed to the letter. The appellant claims that for the first time, on or about 14/12/1989, she came to know through her father that the respondent had already been granted an ex parte divorce-decree by the family court. The appellant in her application inter alia stated as under:

"the applicant submits that the applicant did not receive any notice/letter/summons or communication from this Honble courts office. Even there was no intimation given by postal authorities and the applicant honestly states that till the receipt of the letter from the Army H. Q. New Delhi, she was not aware of the date of proceeding. The applicant submits, the applican



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top