The court established that systematic delays and lack of genuine engagement in proceedings do not warrant a remand for a fresh hearing in divorce cases.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ husband- Mandeepsingh Indrajitsingh Makhija, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.467 of 2017. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Family Suit No.467 of 2017 filed by the wife- Manpreetkaur, for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (henceforth, “the Act”), was allowed.

2. The respondent-wife had approached the Family Court for divorce. It was her case that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.11.2013. The couple started to live together at Delhi. Post shifting to Ahmedabad, it appears that the differences arose between them, as a result of which, particularly, in the year-2015, when the appellant went to the US, things became difficult for her, and therefore, she was constrained to move the Family Court at Ahmedabad for filing a petition for divorce.

3. Mr. Manmeetsingh P. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit as under:

3.1 That for the first time, the seeds of discontent were sown when an FIR was filed against the appellant, which was registered on 01.08.2016. Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would submit that the appellant was constrained to address a letter on 03.02.2016 to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. Drawing our attention to the letter at page no.331 of the paper book, Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would read out the contents of the letter and indicate as to why after the family shifted to the Ahmedabad and he joined the business as suggested by in-laws, the relations which were otherwise good, began to sour.

3.2 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would further contend that the appellant was never at fault and was keen to save his matrimonial life. In fact, he was scared of his in-laws and in fact, in order to resolve the dispute, he had approached his brother-in-law. He read out an e-mail, which is on record.

3.3 With regard to the controversy of the service of notice of the proceedings in the Family Court, he submitted that the respondentwife herself had given two addresses of which, the address of Gurgaon was given as address for notice of service of summons. Pursuant to an application for publication of notice, the notice was published in the Indian Express Edition at New Delhi. Gurgaon being in Haryana, it was no sufficient compliance of service of notice as Gurgaon being border State, it was a deliberate exercise to get the notice published in a news paper at Delhi. The appellant was never aware of the proceedings as the summons were never served. He would submit that this was a deliberate exercise and fraud played on the appellant.

3.4 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that an application was given at Exh.15 by the wife that the stage for the husband be closed and appropriate order be passed. This application was filed on 13.07.2017. Issues were framed by the Trial Court at Exh.16 on 18.08.2017. The issue pertains as to whether the wife was able to prove that after solemnization of marriage, the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty. A closing pursis was filed, thereafter.

3.5 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to Exh.31, to indicate that written arguments were sought to be filed by the wife. Since, the advocate who was dealing with the other cases mainly a criminal case, in which the appellant was facing charges under Section 498 (A), and as the appellant’s advocate was in the court on the day, Exh.32 application was filed on 23.01.2018 through his power of attorney holder Shri. Chirag Kumar for reopening all stages.

3.6 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would further submit that pursuant to the request dated 23.01.2018, right to open all stages never materialized. By an order dated 04.04.2018, the Family Court without any reason rejected these applications. Inviting our