The Court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to substantiate grounds for divorce and the importance of the respondent's participation in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.

The appellant who is the respondent before the trial Court has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment of the Family Court at Belagavi in MC No.91/2019 whereby judgment was passed dissolving the marriage solemnized on 27.02.2016 and decree of divorce was granted.

2. Parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

3. The facts that are made out is that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a wedlock on 27.02.2016 at Nitya Mangal Karyalay, Balekundri, Belagavi and their marriage was solemnized as per prevailing customs. It is further submitted that the petitioner was stated to be serving in the Army.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the marriage, the petitioner and respondent stayed together for about 15 days and the petitioner in the light of his duty in the army had to travel in light of his employment. It is stated that the respondent told the mother of the petitioner on 25.03.2016 that her mother’s condition was not good and she wanted to go to her parental house and along with ornaments, she left her matrimonial home and did not return back.

5. It is further submitted that the efforts were made to amicably resolve the dispute did not bare any fruits and on 26.12.2017, petitioner had issued notice to the respondent to come and join the petitioner and though the notice was served, respondent neither replied nor has complied with the notice.

6. It is further submitted that there has been continuous desertion from 25.03.2016 as the respondent has not turned up. It is further submitted that the respondent had affairs with other persons which is an act of cruelty. Accordingly, petition came to be filed seeking for grant of decree of divorce. Notice was issued on the petition which is stated to have been refused and respondent was placed exparte. The order sheet of the trial Court would reveal that the petitioner led in evidence and marked documents at Ex.P1 to P3 and arguments were advanced and matter was posted for final order. After decree of divorce was granted, the present appeal has been filed by the respondent contending that in the month of February-2019, there was a compromise between petitioner and respondent and it was agreed that both the petitioner and respondent would lead marital life amicably. It is submitted that by playing fraud on the respondent, petitioner filed petition seeking for dissolution of marriage and as respondent was advised not to take notice in view of the settlement and that the matter would be closed. The respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the trial Court. Accordingly, respondent has sought for setting aside of the exparte decree.

7. Heard both sides. The point for consideration is as follows:

1) Whether case is made out for setting aside the judgment and decree and for remanding the matter for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to respondent?

8. We have perused the judgment of the trial Court. It is to be noticed that the trial Court has narrated the averments as made out in the petition at paragraph nos.1 to 3 and in its discussion has clearly narrated the assertions of the petitioner. While considering the point no.1 at paragraph 8 and after referring to the assertions of the petitioner, the trial Court has observed that evidence of PW1 has remained unchallenged and proceeded to pass a decree for divorce. The only one paragraph of the judgment that indicates that there has been some application of mind is extracted as below:-

“This evidence of PW.1 has remained unchallenged. From the evidence it means that there has been refusal and no inclination of the respondent to be with the petitioner. Thereby there is a ground of cruelty proved by the petitioner. The above petition has been filed on 25.02.2016 and respondent as per petition has deserted on 25.03.2016. Thereby the mandatory provision of two years of separation in terms of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hin