IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether the summons of the Divorce Petition was duly served to the respondent, which influenced the court's decision to restore the ex parte Judgment granting divorce in favor of the appellant/husband.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - The present Appeal under Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1954") read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1984") has been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband assailing the Order dated 10.04.2018 vide which the Application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC, 1908") filed on behalf of the respondent/wife has been allowed and the ex parte Judgment dated 24.03.2005 granting divorce in favour of the appellant/husband, has been set aside.

2. The facts, briefly stated are that the appellant/husband, a Pilot and the respondent/wife, Air Hostess with Air India, got married on 28.02.1992 at Calcutta under the Act, 1954. From their wedlock, one son and one girl were born on 28.09.1993 and 12.09.1995 respectively.

3. In November, 2003, the Appellant filed a Petition for Divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Act, 1954 before the Additional District Judge, New Delhi in which Notice dated 24.11.2003 was issued to the respondent/wife for 08.01.2004. The Trial Court noted on 08.01.2004, that no Notice could not be issued to the respondent/wife due to non-filing of the requisite process fee. The learned Judge then directed a fresh Notice to be issued to the respondent which was returnable for 26.02.2004.

4. The process fee was filed on behalf of the Appellant and notice of the Petition was issued through summons as well as registered post, however, the respondent failed to appear. Thereafter, on 15.03.2004, the learned Judge observed as under:

"None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite several calls being given at different intervals. It is already 2:10 p.m. Hence, responded is proceeded exparte. For exparte evidence of the Appellant by way of affidavit on 16.5.04".

5. The respondent/wife was thus, proceeded ex parte and the ex parte evidence was led by the appellant/husband. The ex parte Judgment dated 24.03.2005 consequently followed.

6. After grant of divorce, the appellant/husband got married with one Ms. Anshu Pahwa on 14.12.2006 who had a daughter from her first marriage and the parties along with the daughter started residing together. The two children of the parties also reside with the appellant/husband and Ms. Anshu Pahwa since 2005 and they are being taken care of by the appellant/husband.

7. The respondent/wife then filed an Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC dated 17.03.2007 for setting aside the ex parte Divorce Decree. She had asserted before the learned Principal Judge, Delhi that she never got served with the summons/notice of the Divorce Petition, either through process server or through A.D. Card which also does not bear her signatures.

8. The respondent/wife had further asserted that she came to know that on 17.02.2007 through somebody in the Department of Personnel that her husband i.e., appellant herein, had married with one lady, Ms. Anshu Pahwa. On enquiry, she came across the Circular No. DPE/STF/166 dated 09.02.2007, whereby vide his Application dated 30.12.2006 to the Department for deleting the name of the respondent from the Service Record as he had taken divorce from his first wife, on 24.03.2005. The appellant/husband had later submitted his Application dated 22.01.2007 wherein he declared that he was married to Ms. Anshu Pahwa on 14.12.2006 who had a daughter, Akanksha from her first marriage and that the name of his second wife i.e., Ms. Anshu Pahwa be added in the Service Record.

9. The respondent/wife had asserted that she came to know about the facts of second marriage only on 17.02.2007. She also stated that she was residing with the appellant/husband on 18.02.2004 and was on duty at the time when she was allegedly served and the Service report on the summons as well as on the A.D. Card had been manipulated by the appellant/husband.

10. Therefore, it was claimed that the respon