A party cannot benefit from a wrongful act of misleading the court regarding service; proper notice is fundamental to the validity of judicial decrees.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1987 of 2016 in O.P.No.3852 of 2015 dated 18.05.2022. Originally, O.P.No.3852 of 2015 had been presented as C.O.C.(Civil Original Case) No.268 of 2006 before the Family Court at Jodhpur. The Original Petition had been filed for the purpose of securing a decree of divorce. The decree of divorce was granted exparte on 29.11.2008. I.A.No.1987 of 2016 was filed to set aside the exparte decree. The said application was allowed against which the present revision.

2. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. They got married on 17.05.1995 at Jodhpur. Between 17.05.1995 and 31.08.2003, they were residing in Jodhpur. On 01.09.2003, the husband and wife separated. The wife states that the husband had her remanded to police custody and this statement is denied by the husband. The truth or otherwise need not be gone into in this proceeding, as any finding given now will affect the main case. Suffice it to say that the husband and wife separated on the aforesaid date ie., on

01.09.2003.

3. Thereafter, on 16.10.2006, the husband filed a divorce petition as aforesaid before the Family Court at Jodhpur, State of Rajasthan. He had given the address of the wife as A36, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. In the meantime, it is the case of the wife that since she did not have any support in Jodhpur, she shifted her residence to Chennai. She had initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Family Court at Chennai. In that maintenance proceedings, which was numbered as M.C.No.413 of 2007, she had given her address as No.3/5, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai. In the proceedings before the Family Court at Chennai, the husband entered appearance and was aware of the address given by the wife. Despite being aware of the address, he filed an application in C.O.C.No.268 of 2006 stating that the wife is not traceable in the address given by him in the petition for divorce, and therefore sought for summons through substituted service. This application for substituted service was ordered. As substituted service had been effected, the Family Court in Jodhpur granted a decree for divorce exparte.

4. When these proceedings were pending, the wife initiated proceedings before the Family Court at Chennai in O.P.No.348 of 2011. This petition was for restitution of conjugal rights. When the O.P. was taken up for enquiry on 07.01.2012, the husband filed an application in I.A.No.55 of 2012 to receive the exparte decree that was passed by the Family Court at Jodhpur on 29.11.2008. Immediately on coming to know of the exparte decree of divorce, the wife moved an application before the Family Court at Jodhpur stating that the exparte decree of divorce had been obtained behind her back and it deserves to be set aside. Though the decree had been passed on 29.11.2008, she pleaded that she had filed the set- aside petition within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the exparte decree and that she had never been put on service of the divorce proceedings.

5. Thereafter, she moved an application for transfer before the Supreme Court seeking to transfer the proceedings from the Family Court at Jodhpur to the Family Court at Chennai. This transfer petition was numbered as Transfer Petition (Civil) No.23 of 2015 and was allowed on 01.07.2015. It is on the basis of that order, the proceedings were transferred from Jodhpur to Chennai. On being transferred to Chennai, the set-aside petition was numbered as I.A.No.1987 of 2016 and the original petition was re-numbered as O.P.No.3852 of 2015. The said proceedings were languishing from 2016 till 2022 when the learned Judge finally allowed the application and set aside the exparte order.

6. Before the trial Court, the wife viz., Mrs.Kaushalya Jain, Party-in-Person before me, was examined as P.W.1. She marked Exs.P1 to P28. On the side of the h