The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid service of summons and the duty to furnish correct address, along with the consideration of the respondent's knowledge about the proceedings and the period of limitation for setting aside the decree.

Sham Sunder, J. - This revision-petition is directed, against the order, dated 23.10.2003, rendered by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide which, it accepted the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Sukhjit Kaur and set aside the ex parte decree of divorce dated 09.09.1993.

2. The facts, in brief, are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled as Jaswant Singh v. Sukhjit Kaur, was filed by Jaswant Singh, against his wife Sukhjit Kaur giving her address as 12425 74, Avenue Surrey, B.C. C3 W.O.R.5 Canada, and Sukhjit Kaur was ordered to be summoned for 01.03.1993 for which date the process was not issued by the Ahlmad. It was ordered to be issued for 20.04.1993. On 20.04.1993 the registered cover, containing the summons was received back, with the report that the address given thereon was not complete, and the petitioner was called upon to file correct address of Sukhjit Kaur, on 11.05.1993. On 11.05.1993 instead of filing the correct address of the respondent, an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved, by the petitioner, stating therein, that the respondent was deliberately avoiding the service. The prayer of Jaswant Singh was accepted. Accordingly, the service of Sukhjit Kaur by way of publication in the daily Tribune for 14.06.1993 was ordered notice after publication, was received, but Sukhjit Kaur, did not appear, in the Court, as a result whereof, she was proceeded against ex parte on 14.06.1993. Ultimately, on the basis of ex parte evidence, led by Jaswant Singh, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was allowed on 09.09.2003.

3. Sukhjit Kaur, then came to know, about the ex parte decree dated 09.09.1993, which had been passed against her. She filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the same. It was stated, in the application, that she was never served personally, in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was further stated by her, that it was only on 15.12.2001 during the suit filed by her, under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Maintenance Act, that Jaswant Singh disclosed in the Court of Sh.Rajiv Malhotra the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, in the written statement, that he had obtained the ex parte decree of divorce, against her. Immediately, thereafter, on 20.12.2001, a petition for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce, dated 09.09.1993 was filed. It was further stated that she was not duly served, at the address given, which was wrong, to the knowledge of Jaswant Singh, and thus, ex parte decree of divorce dated 09.09.1993 was liable to be set aside.

4. In reply, Jaswant Singh stated that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 09.09.1993, was barred by time. He further stated that Sukhjit Kaur concealed the material facts, from the court. It was further stated that the summons sent to her, under registered cover, was returned by the postal authorities of Canada, that the address was incomplete. It was further stated that no other alternative was left with him, than to serve Sukhjit Kaur, by way of substituted mode of service. He further submitted that she was duly served, through publication, but she did not come present, and accordingly, the ex parte decree of divorce, dated 09.09.1993 was legally passed. It was further stated by him that the address of Sukhjit Kaur, given to him, in that petition, was correct. It was further stated that Sukhjit Kaur, deserted him. Accordingly, a prayer was made that the application, be dismissed.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was struck:

(i) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1993? OPA

(ii) Relief.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, on record the trial Court, accepted the application un