The intentional failure to serve the petitioner-husband on the correct address led to the quashing of the judgment and decree of divorce.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Cmp No.2475 of 2020

By way of instant application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, permission has been sought by the applicant/appellant to place on record certified copy of zimni orders passed in the proceedings under S.125 CrPC filed by the respondent, as well as certified copy of process fee given by the respondent for the service of the appellant to demonstrate that the non-applicant/respondent-wife, was fully aware that the petitioner-husband resides in Sonepat, Haryana and not at the address given by her in the memo of petition filed by her for divorce in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Haryana. Aforesaid prayer having been made by the applicant/appellant has been resisted by non- applicant/respondent by filing reply to the application, wherein, otherwise, factum with regard to furnishing of address of Sonepat, Haryana by respondent-wife in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has not been denied.

2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record in the instant application as well as documents intended to be placed on record, this Court is of the view that documents intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence, are not only relevant, but may be very crucial for adjudication of the appeal having been filed by the petitioner-husband. Since, documents intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence are certified copies of zimni orders passed by learned Court below in the proceedings initiated by respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., same otherwise being public documents can be always taken into consideration unless authenticity of the same is seriously disputed by opposite party.

3. As has been observed above, in the case at hand, respondent-wife has nowhere disputed that in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, she had not shown petitionerhusband as a resident of Sonepat, Haryana.

4. Consequently, in view of the above, present application is allowed and the relevant documents intended to be placed on record, as annexed with the application, are ordered to be taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

5. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in HMA Petition No.71 of 2017, titled Arti vs. Vijay Kumar, whereby the petition having been filed by the appellant, under Section 13 (I)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, came to be partly allowed on the ground of cruelty, has approached this Court by way of instant appeal, filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

6. Facts, in brief as emerge from the record are that the marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 27.09.2014, according to Hindu rites and customs, at Village Bharnot, Post Office Dugli, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. Parties to lis, lived happily after their marriage for about 1 1/2 years and thereafter, they separated on account of certain differences. Respondent-wife, subsequently, filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, alleging therein that petitionerhusband, kept her nicely for about 1 1/2 years, but thereafter, started harassing her mentally, physically, economically, financially and emotionally. She also alleged that she was maltreated, teased and taunted for bringing less dowry and the petitioner also gave her beatings in the influence of liquor and as such, she be granted divorce on the ground of cruelty.

7. Since, despite service, petitioner-husband failed to appear before learned Court below, he was proceeded ex parte. Learned Court below on the basis of evidence led on record by respondent-wife, allowe