JUDGMENT

Challenging the judgment and decree of divorce granted against her, the respondent in M.C.No.745/2003 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner in M.C.No.745/2003 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.05.1983 in Mangaluru. The parties are Hindus and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). In their conjugal life, the couple are blessed with daughter by name Varsha on 27.05.1984. The petitioner was working as a Bank Manager. The respondent pursued her education in M.Phil., in Economics and completed the same in the year 1989. On Commonwealth scholarship, she went to UK for her studies in Ph.D in Economics. Later she got employment and the petitioner and the child joined the respondent in Yorkshire and lived for about six months. Then he returned to India, the child continued in the custody of the respondent. Later, the child came back to India to pursue education. Upto 1995, the child continued with the mother of the petitioner and was pursuing the education. Thereafter, the respondent took the child with her.

4. Petitioner filed M.C.No.745/2003 claiming that since November 1997, respondent stopped responding to his letters and communication and withdrew from his society without reasonable cause. His request through his advocate to the High Commission of India, India House, London, to trace the respondent and the child went in vain. He sought decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Notice on respondent was served by paper publication and she was set exparte. In support of the case of the petitioner, petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5.

5. The trial Court on hearing the petitioner, allowed the petition and granted decree of divorce. The trial Court held that the petitioner's testimony that the respondent deserted him since 1997 and his attempts to trace her through the High Commission of India, London, were uncontroverted, thereby the ground of desertion is proved.

6. The respondent has challenged the said decree in the above appeal claiming that the petitioner without duly serving the petition notice on her, managed to take notice by paper publication and managed to get the exparte decree, etc.

7. Sri.Hemanth Kumar D., learned counsel for the respondent-wife, reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that the petitioner despite being aware that respondent is not in India, to secure exparte decree, took notice by publication in newspaper which was in circulation only in Karnataka. He further submits that though the petitioner furnished both the addresses, initially he took notice to the address of the respondent in UK schemingly got published the notice in local newspaper. The respondent came to know about the decree only when the same was produced in Crl.Misc.42/2016 filed by the respondent and her daughter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He submits that considering the ground of fraud played on the wife, this Court has already condoned delay of 3530 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, this appeal also requires to be allowed and she be given opportunity.

8. Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Venkatesh Somareddi, advocate on record for the petitioner- husband, submits that the respondent-wife herself in Crl.Misc.Nos.42/2016 and 116/2016, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, respectively and the complaint filed by her in PCR No.26/2016, has given Mangaluru address claiming to be resident of Mangaluru. He claims that respondent-wife had no inclination to lead conjugal life, she did not even challenge the impugned decree within time. After three years of decree, on 18.12.