IMPORTANT POINTS
Exparte decree – Setting aside – Every conclusion must be well supported by adequate reasons and if issue is arising that case has not been properly dealt with, same would be relevant circumstance for remanding matter back for fresh consideration

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Divyesh A. Joshi, J.—This Appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘Act 1955’) is at the instance of the appellant-wife (original defendant), questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara dated 19.08.2017 in the Family Suit No.458 of 2012 instituted by the respondent-husband for obtaining decree of divorce, whereby the Family Court allowed the suit instituted by the husband and declared the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband as null and void.

2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarized as under:

2.1 The marriage between the appellant (original defendant-wife) and the respondent (original plaintiff-husband) was solemnized on 05.04.2004 at Vadodara as per the Hindu rites and rituals. The said marriage was registered with Office of the Registrar of Marriage.

2.2 Prior to solemnization of the said marriage, the parties were in live-in relationship as the respondent-husband was a married man and he did not get divorce from his former wife till 2004.

2.3 The appellant herein is the citizen of U.K. However, as her forefathers are the citizen of India, she has been staying in India since last more than ten years. In the year 2015, due to some medical exigency, she went to U.K. for the purpose of taking treatment.

2.4 After the marriage, the respondent-husband also got spouse Visa for two years. Over a period of time, matrimonial disputes cropped up between the parties which ultimately led to initiation of multiple litigations.

2.5 In such circumstances, referred to above, the respondent-husband instituted a suit being Family Suit No.458 of 2012 before the Family Court at Vadodara for obtaining decree of divorce.

2.6 After institution of the above suit, notice came to be issued to the appellant-wife, however, the appellant-wife refused to accept the same on the ground that one regular civil suit has already been filed before the 13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge and did not bother to appear before the court below in the said proceedings and, therefore, the court below proceeded with the suit and passed an ex-parte judgment and order.

2.7 The Family Court framed the following issues for determination vide Exh.25;

“(1) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has solemnized her marriage with the present petitioner by making a fraud as she suppressed the fact about her first marriage, which is in existence?

(2) Whether the petitioner proves that the marriage soleminzed on 05.04.2004 with the present respondent is illegal requires to be declared as null & void?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

(4) What order?”

2.8 The aforesaid issues came to be answered as under;

“(1) In the affirmative

(2) In the affirmative

(3) In the affirmative

(4) As per final order”

2.9 The learned Trial Judge, after considering the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-husband was successful in proving that his wife had played a fraud with him by suppressing the fact that the defendant-wife was already married and the said marriage was in existence at the time of registration of marriage with the plaintiff-husband and, therefore, the said marriage void, ab initio and nullity. Accordingly, the trial judge passed a decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the husband.

2.10 Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with this appeal.

3. Mr. Nirad Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has vehemently submitted that the Family Court committed a serious error in allowing the suit filed by the respondent-husband praying for a decree of divorce on the ground of fraud being played by the appellant-wife upon the husband by suppressing her marital status.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Buch has further submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence of the parties in its true spirit and proper perspective resulting in failure of justic