JUDGMENT :

(N.K. Chandravanshi, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 08.05.2018 passed by Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba in Misc. Civil Case No. 01/2017 whereby application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth “CPC”) alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals, but their marriage did not go well, hence, respondent/wife (henceforth “wife') filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “Act, 1955”) for granting decree of divorce against the appellant/husband (henceforth “Husband”) on 8.4.2016, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 92-A/2016 in the Family Court, Camp Court – Katghora, District Korba, in which, despite service of notice, husband did not make his presence before the family Court, hence, the Family Court proceeded ex parte against him in the case on 09.09.2016 and after taking evidence of wife, vide judgment & decree dated 09.12.2016, granted ex parte decree of divorce against the husband.

3. On 4.7.2017, husband filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 01/2017, stating therein that in Civil Suit No. 92-A/2016, the notice or summons was never served upon him and despite knowing the fact very well that husband did not reside at Bilaspur, rather he resided at Bangluru/Mumbai, wife without providing his the then present address to the Court got ex parte decree against him, hence, ex parte judgment & decree dated 9.12.2016 was sought to be set aside by allowing his aforesaid application and restoring the Civil Suit in its original number, so that opportunity of hearing may be afforded to him.

4. After filing reply by wife and perusing the material available on record, learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2018 dismissed his both the applications holding therein that despite issuance of notice through usual mode and through paper publication, husband did not appear before the Family Court, hence, ex parte judgment & decree was passed against him. It was further observed that sufficient reasons have not been assigned by the husband for delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband would submit that at the time of marriage, husband was working and residing in Bangluru (Karnataka) where wife also resided for some time with him, thereafter, he shifted to Mumbai in relation to his job, which is also known to the wife and her family, despite that wife filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 92-A/2016 mentioning his permanent address of Bilaspur, where his old aged parents used to reside and they too often reside out of Bilaspur because they come to reside with the appellant/husband for 3-4 months in a year and for few months, they reside in husband's paternal grand-father's ancestral house in Kolkata, therefore, almost half of the time in the year, their home at Bilaspur remains locked. It is further submitted that despite knowing all these facts very well, wife has filed aforesaid civil suit concealing the aforesaid facts, so that husband should not get any information about the same and she may obtain ex parte decree of divorce against him. It is further submitted that any notice through ordinary process server/or through the Court having jurisdiction where husband was shown to be residing, were never issued in the mater and notice was sent directly by registered post, which was returned unserved/un-claimed, thereafter, notice was published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”, but as the husband and his family members are not the readers of “Dainik Bhaskar”, therefore, they could not get any information about the notice/summon issued