The main legal point established is the requirement to prove proper service of notice in divorce proceedings and the validity of setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-non-applicant-husband (hereinafter 'the husband') against the order dated 1-12-2018 in Misc. Case No.12/2018 (CIS No.9/2018) passed by Additional District Judge Laxmangarh, District Sikar allowing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte divorce decree dated 14-2-2017 in Case No.278/2016, in favour of the respondent-applicant- wife (hereinafter 'the wife') in a case where ex-parte decree of divorce was granted in favour of husband and against the wife.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order dated 1-12-2018 passed by the trial court.

3. Facts of the case are that the husband filed a divorce petition on 24-9- 2016 for dissolution of marriage with the applicant wife performed on 11- 3-2011 claiming that from their wedlock a son Ujjwal chaudhary was born and due to disputes between husband and wife, on 3-4-2013 the wife left matrimonial home and did not return thereafter. Therefore, he filed divorce petition inter alia alleging therein about several misbehaviour of the wife. The court on 2-1-2017 ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the wife on the ground that on 24-7-2016 notices were sent to wife through registered AD, and on filing Talvana on 19-12-2016, she was ordered to be present in court, and when she did not remain present in court, on 2-1- 2017 exparte proceedings were ordered. Ultimately the divorce decree was passed on 14-2-2017.

4. On coming to know about the divorce decree, the wife filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree and submitted that as claimed 19-12-2016, no such date was mentioned in the notice, sent through registered AD. Their marriage was registered at Bharatpur, but no notice through registry was reached at Bharatpur. The husband collusively with post office of Laxmangarh shown to have sent notice at Bharatpur, while the wife was residing at Mathura with her brother. From 22-11-2016 to 30- 11-2016 her parents were also not at Bharatpur. The husband has also filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of which notices were served on wife at Chaitanya Lok Colony, Mathura, to which she filed reply on 27-8-2014. There were several other proceedings between husband and wife, and in all such proceedings the address of the wife was of Mathura, while malafidely the husband sent notice of divorce petition at Bharatpur and got ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 in his favour. In course of several proceedings between husband and wife when a Panchayat meeting was held on 3-1-2018 at Pathaina, Bharatpur for compromise between husband and wife, then the wife came to know about ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 and divorce decree dated 14-2-2017. Then she filed application for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

5. The husband filed reply to application and opposing the application on many grounds first time disclosed about his second marriage on 17-6- 2017, just after four months of the divorce decree dated 14-2-2017.

6. The trial court considering the report of General Post Office of Bharatpur, which was obtained by the wife under Right to Information Act, that no notice in name of wife-Kusum Singh was received by the Post Office to be served Kusum Singh at Bharatpur and in view of the fact that husband failed to prove residence of wife at Bharatpur and that in all other proceedings wife's residence was proved of Mathura, the trial court vide order dated 1-12-2018 set aside the ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 as also the decree of divorce dated 14-2-2017. Hence, this petition has been filed by the husband impugning the order dated 1-12-2018.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Counsel for husband has vehemently opposed the impugned order and submitted that the trial court while setting aside ex-parte decree has not considered the fact that husband has already entered into second marriage with Lajja De