JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava , J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. F-66 A/2017, by which learned Family Court has granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellant was married to the respondent on 19.04.2016. An application, purporting to be joint application, was submitted before the Family Court on 04.05.2017 seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent, as provided under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that application, it was stated that their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2016. After marriage, the appellant/wife went to maternal house on 26.04.2016, but thereafter, she did not come back nor resided with her husband. It was pleaded that the parties no longer find themselves in a position to restore marital relationship and have decided, without any pressure and out of their own free will, to part ways towards that end. They have jointly moved application for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. After expiry of six months, the learned trial Court recorded the evidence of both the parties and then recorded a finding that the parties have been living separately for one and half year and there is no possibility of restitution of their marital relationship and that marriage is irretrievably broken and that both the parties for that reason, are inclined to break the marital relationship, granted decree of divorce by mutual consent vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017.

3. The aforesaid judgment decree, however, has been challenged on the sole ground that the decree has been obtained by fraud, inasmuch as, the appellant/wife never participated in the proceedings, she never appeared, never signed any pleadings, affidavit etc. and the respondent/husband, in order to somehow get a decree of divorce, presented an imposter who falsely impersonated the appellant before the Court and thus succeeded in his mischievous and fraudulent design to obtain decree of divorce.

4. In the appeal, certain photographs have also been annexed, supported by pleading in the memo of appeal that these photographs are of the period subsequent to the date of passing of decree of divorce which shows that the appellant/wife was in complete dark and not knowing that her husband had already fraudulently obtained decree against her. According to the appellant, she was continuing to reside with the husband and participating in various functions and family activity without knowing that the respondent obtained decree against her.

5. On such allegations of fraud, this Court stayed the ex- parte judgment and decree and also directed the Registrar(Vigilance) to conduct an inquiry to find out whether the allegations are prima-facie correct or not. The Registrar(Vigilance), held an inquiry on administrate side and also submitted a report before this Court which also recorded an opinion that the decree appears to have been obtained by fraud behind the back of appellant Rashmita Patel by keeping her in dark.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that once the report of the Vigilance officer prima facie supports the allegation made by the appellant that the decree was obtained by fraud, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside, as it is result of fraudulent act not only against the parties appellant but also it is case of fraud upon the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that even if the joint application was filed before the family Court on 04.05.2017, the order sheets record appearance of the appellant/wife only on 12.07.2017 and in earlier orders dated 09.05.2017 and 21.06.2017, the appellant is shown to be absent and even then, in the margin of order dated 09.05.2017, signature of the appellant appears which prima-facie smacks of interpolation of record. He would further submit that, though, the presence of the appellant is said