Back
2012(1) JLJ 67
S.K. Gangele and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
Brijendra Singh Bhadauria v. Smt. Usha Singh alias Deepa
First Appeal No.228 of 2009 (Gwalior) : against order dated 11.5.2009, passed by Family Court, Gwalior in MJC No.12/2008; Decided on 21.9.2011.
Held : The application filed under Order IX rule 13 read with section 151 of CPC was maintainable and would not become infractuous on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant had re-married after passing of the ex parte decree for divorce. AIR 1997 Raj. 63 discussed. AIR 2004 Cal. 113, AIR 1988 SC 839 and 1997(1) MPLJ 124 referred to.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.5 Rr.17 and 18 -- mode of service of summons -- summons affixed on house of defendant and returned to Court with note of refusal -- on refusal -- service by affixation cannot be made by process server -- summons not witnessed -- process server not known to summoned person -- such service is not irregular but it is illegal.
Held : In view of rules 17 and 18 of Order V CPC which lay down a procedure of service when the defendant refused to accept the service and the endorsement to be made by the serving official, there were several infirmities and lapses on the part of the Court‘s peon/process server. Firstly, on the alleged refusal by the defendant, he did not affix a copy of the summons and the plaint on the outer door or some conspicuous place of residence of the defendant. Secondly, tendering of the summons, its refusal and affixation of the summons and copy of the plaint on the wall of the residence should have been witnessed by persons who identified the defendant and her house and witnessed the procedure. The endorsement on the back of the summons (Ex.D-2) shows that the witnesses have refused to put their signatures on the summons but this endorsement on the back of summons does not support the testimony of AW4, Devendra Shrivastava but rather contradicts him. (2002)5 SCC 377 followed. 2008(I) MPWN 40 relied on. 1991 JLJ 45 and 2000(1) JLJ 95 referred to.
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R.13, Proviso II -- applicability of -- ex parte decree of divorce -- summons not duly served -- it is not irregularity but is a illegality -- application for setting aside ex parte decree -- provisions of proviso not attracted -- ex parte decree rightly set aside.
Held : The Court can refuse to set aside the ex parte decree if it is convinced that there was some irregularity in the service of the summons and the defendant had sufficient notice for his appearance. In the case in hand, the Court below has considered this aspect of the matter, therefore, in our considered opinion, this case was not a case of irregular service of summons, it was a case of illegality in service of the summons upon the defendant/respondent/wife .... In the case in hand, it has not been proved by the plaintiff-appellant that the service of summons was in accordance with law, therefore, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Court below rightly not permitted the plaintiffd`respondent to take advantage of the second proviso of Order IX rule 13 of CPC. 2002(2) MPLJ 585 and (2011)3 SCC 545 discussed.
(4) Court -- duty of -- before proceeding ex parte -- process and report of service of summons must be cautiously seen -- it should not formally use the words that defendant was served but is absent. [Para 26
(5) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss.13 and 15 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R.13, Proviso II -- applicability of -- civil suit for divorce by husband before Family Court -- ex parte decree of divorce -- re-marriage by husband -- one child also born -- summons not duly served -- it is not irregularity but is a illegality -- application for setting aside such decree -- provisions of proviso not attracted -- decree rightly set aside. 2002(2) MPLJ 585 and (2011)3 SCC 545 discussed. [Paras 11 & 18 to 25
¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-9 fu- 13 rFkk /kkjk 151 && mica/k ds v/khu vkosnu && dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && fookg&foPNsn dh ,di{kh; fMdzh && fMdzh ds Ng ekl i‘pkr~ && ifr iqu%fookfgr && fookg ls ,d cPpk Hkh mRiUu gqvk && ,di{kh; fMdzh vikLr djkus ds fy, vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 lgifBr /kkjk 151 ds varxZr izLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu pykus ;ksX; Fkk bl vk/kkj ij vlQy ugha gksrk fd oknh&vihykFkhZ us fookg&foPNsn dh ,di{kh; fMdzh ikfjr djus ds i‘pkr~ iqu%fookg dj fy;k FkkA , vkb vkj 1997 jkt- 63 foosfprA , vkb vkj 2004 dy- 113] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 839 rFkk 1997 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 124 fufnZ"VA ¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5 fu-17 rFkk 18 && leuksa dh rkehy dh jhfr && leu izfroknh ds edku ij fpidk;k rFkk badkj dh fVIi.kh ds lkFk U;k;ky; dks ykSVk;k && badkj ij vknsf‘kdk rkehydrkZ fpidkdj rkehy ugha dj ldrk && leu lk{;kafdr ugha && vknsf‘kdk rkehydrkZ rkehy fd, tkus okys O;fDr dks tkurk ugha && ,slk rkehy vfu;fer ugha gS ysfdu voS/k gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lh ih lh ds vkns‘k ik¡p fu;e 17 rFkk 18 ds voyksdu ls tks rkehy dh izfdz;k vf/kdfFkr djrk gS fd tc izfroknh rkehy izfrxzg.k djus ls badkjk djrk gS rFkk inh; rkehydrkZ }kjk i`"Bkadu fd;k tkrk gS] ogk¡ U;k;ky; ds Hk`R;@rkehydrkZ dh vksj ls vusd f‘kf‘kyrk,a rFkk xyfr;ka FkhaA izFker% izfroknh }kjk badkj djus ij] mlus leu rFkk okni= dh izfr izfroknh ds fuokl LFkku ds ckgjh }kj ij ;k fdlh vU; lgt n`‘; Hkkx ij ugha yxkbZA f}rh;r% leu dk fuonku djrs gq,] bldk badkj fd;k tkuk ;k fuokl LFkku dh nhoky ij leu rFkk okni= dh izfr yxkrs le; ,sls O;fDr dh lk{; gksuk pkfg, ftlus izfroknh rFkk mlds edku dks igpkuk gks rFkk izfdz;k dk lk{kh jgk gksA leu ¼izn‘kZ Mh&2½ ds ihNs Hkkx ij i`"Bkadu n‘kkZrk gS fd lkf{k;ksa us leu ij vius gLrk{kj djus ls badkj fd;k gS fdarq leu ds ihNs Hkkx ij ;g i`"Bkadu v lk 4] nsosaUnz JhokLro dh ifjlk{; dk leFkZu ugha djrk fdarq mYVk mldk [kaMu djrk gSA ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 377 vuqlfjrA 2008 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 40 voyafcrA 1991 ts ,y ts 45 rFkk 2000 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 95 fufnZ"VA ¼3½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-9 fu-13] ijarqd nks && dk ykxw gksuk && fookg&foPNsn dh ,di{kh; fMdzh && leu dh lE;d~ :i ls rkehy ugha && ;g vfu;ferrk ugha gS fdarq voS/krk gS && ,di{kh; fMdzh fujLr djkus ds fy, vkosnu && ijarqd ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs && fMdzh lgh gh vikLr dh xbZA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn ;g lansg nwj dj fn;k tkrk gS fd leu dh rkehy esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk Fkh rFkk izfroknh dks mldh mifLFkfr ds fy, i;kZIr lwpuk Fkh rc U;k;ky; ,di{kh; fMdzh vikLr djus ls badkj dj ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa] fupys U;k;ky; us ekeys ds bl igyw ij fopkj fd;k gS] blfy, gekjh fopkfjr jk; esa ;g izdj.k leu dh vfu;fer rkehy dk ugha Fkk ;g izfroknh@izR;FkhZ@iRuh ij leu dh rkehy dh voS/krk dk FkkA---- bl izdj.k esa] oknh&vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd leu dh rkehy fof/k ds vuqlkj Fkh] blfy,] orZeku izdj.k ds fof‘k"V rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] fo}ku fupys U;k;ky; us oknh&vihykFkhZ dks vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds f}rh; ijarqd dk ykHk ysus ds fy, lgh gh vuqer ugha fd;kA 2002 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 585 rFkk ¼2011½ 3 ,l lh lh 545 foosfprA ¼4½ U;k;ky; && dk drZO; && ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh djus ls iwoZ && vknsf‘kdk rFkk leu dh fjiksVZ lko/kkuh dks ns[kh tkuk pkfg, && vkSipkfjd :i ls bu ‘‘kCnksa dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, fd izfroknh ij rkehy Fkh fdarq vuqifLFkr gSA ¼iSjk 26 ¼5½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13 rFkk 15 && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-9 fu-13] ijarqd nks && dk ykxw gksuk && ifr }kjk fookg&foPNsn ds fy, dqVqac U;k;ky; ds le{k flfoy okn && fookg&foPNsn dh ,di{kh; fMdzh && ifr }kjk iqufoZokg && ,d cPpk Hkh mRiUu && leu dh lE;d~ :i ls rkehy ugha && ;g vfu;ferrk ugha gS vfirq ,d voS/krk gS && ,slh fMdzh vikLr djus ds fy, vkosnu && ijarqd ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs && fMdzh lgh gh vikLr dh xbZA 2002 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts rFkk ¼2011½ 3 ,l lh vkj 545 foosfprA ¼iSjk 11 rFkk 18 ls 25
Dube, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2009 passed in MJC No.12/08 (Smt. Usha Singh alias Deepa Vs. Brijendra Singh) by the Family Court, Gwalior by which the respondent application under Order IX rule 13 read with section 151 of Code Civil Procedure,1908 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 3.10.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.202-A/07 HMA, has been allowed, the appellant/plaintiff/husband has filed this first appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act,1984.
2. The respondent/defendant/wife moved an application under Order IX rule 13 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia pleading that she was not served in accordance with law, therefore, ex parte decree passed against her deserves to be set aside.
3. The appellant/plaintiff/respondent contested the case and denied the averments made in the application.
4. The respondent-wife examined herself as AW1 and witnesses, Baijnath Singh (AW2), Process Writer, Kumari Uma Bhairavi (AW3), Family Court’s Peon, Devendra Shrivastava (AW4) and Family Court’s Clerk, Keval Shrivastava (AW5) in support of the application. The appellant-husband filed an affidavit of Smt. Manjula Goswami under Order XVIII rule 4 of CPC, but the said witness was not appeared in the witness-box for cross-examination. The learned Court below after hearing the arguments vide its order dated 11.5.2009 allowed the application of the respondent-wife and set aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 3.10.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.202-A/2007 HMA.
5. The appellant-respondent filed a review application against the impugned order dated 11.5.2009. The learned Court below vide its order dated 24.7.2009 dismissed the review application.
6. At the time of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri H.D. Gupta submitted that the summons was issued and duly served upon the respondent. The respondent-wife refused to accept the summons, therefore, the process server made a note of her refusal on summons and returned to the Court. The service of summons was duly effected upon the defendant for 29.8.2007 but the respondent deliberately did not appear before the Court, therefore, the Court below proceeded ex parte against the respondent and passed the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce. It is further submitted that the respondent was fully aware of the pendency of the civil suit as well as the ex parte judgment and decree but she never applied to set aside the same earlier because she did not want to live with the appellant. It is only after re-marriage of the appellant on 18.4.2008, the respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on 24.4.2008 to harass the appellant as well as his newly wedded and innocent wife. Learned senior counsel categorically submitted that the appellant contacted the second marriage six months after passing of the ex parte decree by complying the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Now he is living with his newly wedded wife and one child has also been born out of the wedlock. In these circumstances, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Surendra Kumar v. Kiran Devi [AIR 1997 Rajasthan 63 (SB)].
7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the ex parte decree cannot be set aside merely on the ground there has been irregularity in service of summons. In this regard, he has placed reliancfe on the decisions rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan v. State Bank of Indore [2002(2) MPLJ 585], and Supreme Court in the case of Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti [(2011)3 SCC 545].
8. In response, Shri M.B. Mangal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent forcefully submitted that neither the summons has been served upon the respondent nor the proces
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
