IMPORTANT POINT
.

M. M.S.BEDI, J.

1. As per the report of the process serving agency, the respondent had obtained the summons and disappeared on 18.05.2017. Report of the process server to that effect has been submitted.

2. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-husband, who has obtained an ex-parte decree under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is intentionally adopting evasive approach to appear and contest the appeal.

3. Case has been called twice. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-Amit Sareen. The respondent is proceeded against ex-parte and the appeal has been considered after going through the records of the lower Court.

4. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, allowing the application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act declaring the marriage of the parties as null and void being violative of clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. The respondent-husband sought a declaration of the marriage between the parties as nullity on the averments that his marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 28.06.2010 at Jalandhar. Both the parties were divorcee and their marriage was performed by way of garlanding ceremony. The respondent claimed that his first marriage was dissolved on 02.03.2009 by a decree of divorce passed by the Court of Sh. Tarsem Mangla, the then Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. He had given a matrimonial advertisement in a newspaper for 2nd marriage and came in contact with the parents of the appellant who disclosed that the appellant was also a divorcee as she was previously married to one Munish Khanna of Lucknow and had obtained the divorce through the Court. In view of the said circumstances, the marriage was performed. As the appellant was not having any legal decree of divorce from her previous husband, the respondent was not able to persuade the appellant to join his society. As such, he filed a petition for annulment of the matrimonial ties. Said application filed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent was, however, withdrawn by him on the basis of alleged assurance given by the family members of the appellant but later on the family members of the appellant allegedly wriggled out of the settlement and implicated the respondent in various false cases. The respondent also took up the plea of cruelty for declaring the marriage as nullity.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2017 indicates that the appellant had put in appearance through her counsel but on account of non-appearance on behalf of the appellant only on one date of hearing i.e. 08.08.2016, she was proceeded against ex-parte.

7. We have gone through the lower Court record and perused the interim orders. The interim orders indicate that on 08.08.2016, the appellant was proceeded against ex-parte at 2.40 P.M. and case was adjourned to 05.09.2016 for ex-parte evidence. On 05.09.2016, ex-parte evidence of PW-1 Amit Sareen, PW-2 Surinder Kumar Sareen and PW- 3 Satnam Singh was recorded and the evidence was closed but no final order was passed on 05.09.2016. The order dated 05.09.2016 reads as follows:-

“PW-1 Amit Sareen, PW2 Surinder Kumar Sareen and PW-3 Satnam Singh have come present and examined. Petitioner closed his ex-parte evidence by making separate statement. Arguments partly heard. Case is adjourned to 27.09.2016 for remaining arguments.”

8. After the above-said order, the case was adjourned to 27.09.2016, on which date the appellant moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 08.08.2016. The interim order dated 27.09.2016 reads as follows:-

“Counsel for respondent moved an application for set aside exparte order dated 08.08.2016. Copy of the same supplied to counsel for petitioner, who seeks time to file reply of the said application.

9. On request, case is adjourned to 04.10.2016 f