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

1986 Supreme(Cal) 39

High Court Of Calcutta
MUKHERJEE,.
TARAKESWAR SAHA - Appellant
Versus
BINAPANI SAHA - Respondent
C. O.  3136  Of  1986
Decided On : 01/31/1986

Advocates Appeared:
D.N.MALICK, ISHANI GHOSH, PRAFULLA KUMAR GHOSH, S.DAS GUPTA, SUPRIYA CHATTERJEE

The provisions of the CPC, including Order 9 Rule 13, are applicable to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a matrimonial suit under the Act.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - EXPARTE DECREE - SETTING ASIDE - ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 21 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - APPLICATION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 FOR SETTING ASIDE EXPARTE DECREE PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL SUIT - CONCURRENT REMEDIES OF APPEAL AND APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 - EFFECT OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a husband, filed a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife, the opposite party. The wife did not appear on the date of hearing and an ex parte decree was passed in favor of the husband. Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to set aside the ex parte decree. The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application, arguing that once an ex parte decree is passed in a matrimonial suit, the provisions of the CPC would no longer be applicable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the provisions of the CPC, including Order 9 Rule 13, are applicable to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expressly provides that proceedings under the Act shall be regulated by the CPC, so far as may be. 2. The provisions of the CPC, including Order 9 Rule 13, are applicable to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even after the passing of an ex parte decree. 3. The defendant in a matrimonial proceeding has the right to apply for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him or her for default of appearance. 4. The remedies by way of appeal and by application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC are concurrent and one could simultaneously prosecute both the said remedies.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the wife's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.

MOOKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN our view, the learned Additional District Judge did not commit any error of jurisdiction by allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the opposite party wife for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in a matrimonial suit instituted by the husband petitioner. Proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are before established civil courts. The Hindu Marriage Act having provided for adjudication of the proceedings under the said Act before established Civil Court, the court is imparted with the ordinary incidents of the procedure including power under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. We are fortified in our said view by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar v. Sm. Kanan Bala, A. I. R. 1960 Cal. 565 which inter alia held that in the light of the provisions of Sections 13, 19 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned District Judge before whom a matrimonial proceeding is instituted has power under Section 8 (2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act to transfer the same to an Additional District Judge.

( 2 ) SECTION 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expressly provides that subject to the other provisions contained in the said Act and such Rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, proceedings under the Act shall be regulated so far as may be by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Thus the aforesaid provision expressly makes Civil Procedure Code applicable to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. We are unable to read, as suggested by Mr. Dasgupta, learned advocate for the petitioner, a limitation in Section 21 of the Act to the effect that once proceedings under the Hindu marriage Act terminate by passing of decree, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would be no longer applicable. Even after passing an exparte decree the Civil Court has jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code to entertain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside an exparte decree passed for default of the appearance by the defendant. The matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are regulated by the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, even after passing an exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code, the court retains its jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the said exparte decree passed by it. Kotwal, J. in the case of Sunanda v. Gundopant Bandopant Ashtekar, A. I. R. 1961 Bom. 225 has inter alia, held that by virtue of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act provisions of Civil Procedure Code including Order 9 Rule 13 would apply to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. We respectfully agree with the said view. There is no contrary intention expressed either in Section 21 or in any other provision of the Hindu Marriage Act depriving the defendant in a matrimonial proceeding of his or her right to apply for setting aside an exparte decree passed against him or her for default of appearance.

( 3 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Anjan Kumar v. Sm. Minakshi, AIR 1985 Gau 44, that appeal would lie against an exparte decree passed in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act and application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the said exparte decree would not therefore be maintainable. Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has provided that all decrees made by the court in any proceeding under the said Act shall be appealable decrees of the Court made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. But the said provision does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude application of Order 9 Rule 13 to exparte decrees passed for default of appearance in matrimonial proceedings. It is settled law that a defendant against whom an exparte decree has been passed under Rule 6 Order 9 of the Code for default of appeara


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top