SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Abhay M. Naik, J.
Arvind Singh Bhadoriya —Revisionist
versus
Smt. Kunti Bhadoriya —Non-applicant
Civil Revision 54 of 2008
Decided on 17.9.2010

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Revisionist:P.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Non-Applicant:Shri K.L. Gupta, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Marital relationship between parties has no role in proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 9 Rule 13—Hindu Marriage Act , 1955—Section 13—Divorce—Ex-parte decree for divorce set aside—There was no due service of summons on non-applicant(wife)—Revisionist failed to adduce evidence to the effect that non-applicant was aware of suit for divorce—This being so, ex parte proceedings drawn against non-applicant have been set aside and consequently ex parte judgment and decree have also been set aside—Findings returned by Trial Court affirmed. (Paras 6 and 7)

       (ii) Family Courts Act, 1984—Section 7 and 8—Jurisdiction of Family Court—After establishment of Family Court, District Court or any subordinate court ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act—This being so, revisionist is required to establish that proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC arising from an ex-parte judgment and decree which was passed by the Additional District Judge, before establishment of Family Courts are covered by explanation to Section 7(1). (Para 8)

       (iii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 9 Rule 13—Hindu Marriage Act , 1955—Section 13—Setting aside ex-parte decree—Marital relationship between parties has no role in proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC because same will not have any bearing on the question of valid and effective service of summons on non applicant against whom ex-parte judgment and decree for divorce was passed by Trial Court—If Court, in such proceedings, finds that there was no valid and effective service of summons on defendant, neither existence of marital relationship nor absence thereof would make impact on such finding. (Para 11)

       Result: Revision petition dismissed.

ORDER

Abhay M. Naik, J.—This Civil Revision has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 25.1.08 passed by the court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, allowing thereby an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC of the non-applicant.

2. Revisionist got married to non-applicant on 4.2.95 at village Lona, District Jalaun (U.P.). They resided together at Station Road, Gohad Chauraha, Dist. Bhind (M.P.) up to 6.8.05. Revisionist submitted an application for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground under Section 13(1)(a} and (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, on 8.6.99 wherein address of the non-applicant was shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Process Server submitted a report that the non-applicant was not residing at the said address. Similarly, the notice sent by registered post came back unserved on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected under Order V, Rule 17 CPC and ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce in favour of the revisionist was passed on 14.1.2000. Non-applicant came to know about it on 04.02.2006 during the proceedings before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun, Camp Orai. Non-applicant, thereafter submitted an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC on 14.2.2006 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act mainly with the allegations that her address was wrongly shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. There was a clear report of the process server that there was no residence of non-applicant at the said address. Notice issued by registered post came back unserved on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected by way of affixation under Order V, Rule 17 CPC. It is stated that the non-applicant used to reside with the applicant himself which was suppressed. Revisionist used to insist for dowry which could not be accepted, therefore, the non- applicant was beaten badly and was brought to her father in an unconscious condition by the revisionist as well as her brother-in-law Gyanveer Sikarwar. She was, thus, left at her father’s place in Orai on 7.8.05. A complaint was lodged by the non-applicant with the Police Station, Jalaun. After due investigation, case was registered against the revisionist and challan has already been submitted in the Court. Revisionist and other co-accused were served with the notices. Thereafter, the revisionist submitted a Criminal Revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun, Camp at Orai which was fixed to 4.2.2006. When the non-applicant appeared before the said Court she came to know, for the first time, that an ex parte judgment and decree for divorce has been obtained by the revisionist on 14.1.2000. Thereafter, the non-applicant contacted her lawyer who after due inspection of the record of case No.108A/99 HMA submitted an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted for condonation of delay.

3. Revisionist submitted his replies refuting thereby the contentions made in the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. Learned Trial Judge vide its order dated 5.9.2006 allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC by the impugned order dated 25.01.2008 setting aside thereby the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.1.2000. Hence, the present revision is submitted.

5. Shri Chaturvedi and Shri Gupta, learned counsel, made their submissions in support of their respective stands.

6. Civil Suit No.l08A/99HMA was instituted by the revisionist against the non-applicant for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which address of the non-applicant was given as House No.34, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Learned








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top