JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - The appellant had filed the petition for decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 11-3-1993. In the petition as presented the petitioner further averred that he was divorcee when he got married to the respondent. The marriage was soleminzed as per Hindu Rites as both petitioner and respondent are Hindu. The petitioner residence is at A/205, Suryakiran Apartment, Dharampur Cross Road, Valsad (West) in Gujarat State. After the marriage the petitioner and respondent went to reside at his house. They stay their as husband wife together for about a month. At about end of first month of their marriage, according to the petitioner the respondent informed him that uncle and aunt who were aged were not keeping good health and as such she would like to go to their house at Dahisar, Mumbai. He therefore brought respondent at Dahisar on 12-4-1993. After they had reached the house of uncle of respondent, the respondent suggested that she would like to stay with them for a few days. He thus left the respondent at the house of uncle of the respondent. He then went to uncle's house after a week to collect the respondent. The petitioner was informed by respondent at that time that she was not interested in coming with him to the house at Valsad. The petitioner persuaded her but she was not interested and did not give any proper reason. She also told her uncle and aunt that she was not interested in going to Valsad as she was not interested in staying with the petitioner as his wife at Valsad. As he could not persuade the respondent to return with him he proceeded back to his house, alone.

2. After about 2/3 weeks, after telephone talk with the respondent he once again proceeded to Dahisar to bring respondent back to matrimonial home. Persuasion failed and once again respondent told petitioner that she was not interested in staying with petitioner as his wife. No specific reasons were assigned by respondent for refusal to come to stay with petitioner as wife at Valsad. At that time petitioner discovered that respondent had brought back all her gold ornaments as set out in para 6 of the petition. The petitioner took the assistance of his sister and brother-in-law as also relatives to persuade the respondent to come back but all attempts were in vain.

It is then the case of the petitioner that he received a communication on 31-5-1993 from the office of Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Greater Mumbai, in pursuance to the application made by respondent on 25-5-1993 for free legal aid. Pursuant to the said letter the petitioner along with his sister and brother in law met the officer in charge of Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Greater Mumbai. Respondent was also present. The case of the petitioner is that he informed that he was willing to take back the respondent as his wife and she could come to stay at Valsad. Respondent, however showed her reluctance to join the petitioner as his wife at Valsad.

It is the case of the petitioner therefore that respondent has deserted the petitioner from 15-4-1993. The petitioner itself was filed in the month of July, 1998 i.e. more than 5 years. According to the petitioner after the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

3. Summons were directed to be served on the respondent. The order of trial Court shows that the respondent's address was shown as C/o Shri Shevaldas Manwani, 46 Jaya Nagar, MIS Civil Lines, Devas (M.P.). The roznama of the proceedings on 11-6-1999 as recorded shows that ex parte order was passed against respondent. The order of the trial Court discloses that the Bailiff of Court at Devas has reported that though respondent was present, she refused to accept summons.

The Court treated that as valid service and therefore directed that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document