IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT &

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 2088 of 2024 SANGAMLAL GUPTA Versus RAKHI GUPTA Appearance:

Ms. Vidhi Singh - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla In this appeal the order dated 29.5.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa, in MJC No.08/2023 is under challenge here, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC by appellant-husband along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

2. The fact admitted for the decision of this appeal are that a petition under Sections 12 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by respondent-wife against appellant-husband for seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties was null and void and also for seeking return of dowry items and cash amount given to appellant-husband at the time of marriage. The said petition was registered as a civil suit bearing RCHM No.130/2021, which was admittedly decreed ex-parte. MJC No.8/2023 preferred by appellant-husband under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside said ex-parte judgment and decree was dismissed by the trial court under the impugned order.

3. Appellant-husband had filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC on the ground that notice was never served upon him in original case of RCHM 130/2021 and he came to know about ex-parte judgment and decree passed in that case only on 8.6.2023. He, therefore, preferred petition for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree by claiming that he was under imprisonment between 26.9.2022 and 28.2.2023 and no notice was served upon him prior to said period. His further claim was that he never authorised any advocate to appear on his behalf in that civil suit. A request was accordingly made to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed in civil suit and restore it on original number to give an opportunity to the appellant-husband for submitting his case.

4. Respondent-wife submitted a written reply to the application of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and claimed that appellant-husband had all the knowledge about the institution of civil suit and its dates of hearing. Her further claim was that solely on the instruction of appellant-husband, his counsel appeared in that civil suit and later failed to give appearance resulting into an ex-parte judgment against appellant. It was further pleaded that appellant-husband had fraudulently solemnized this marriage with respondent-wife as he was already married to another woman and his first marriage was in existence at the time of his second marriage with respondent. A request was accordingly made to dismiss the petition.

5. From the record of trial court it is found that both the parties were granted opportunity to produce evidence and after appreciation of facts and evidence led by them, the trial court dismissed the petition of Order 9 Rule

13 CPC, hence this appeal.

6. The grounds raised in this appeal are that the impugned order dated 29.5.2024 was passed without due application of mind and it was also against the settled principles of law. It appears that the delay was already condoned by the trial court when it directed the registration of MJC but on 29.5.2024 the application of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed on the ground of delay. This procedural wrong was an abuse of process of law. Appellant- husband had explained the reason of delay but trial court made no efforts to examine and understand the submissions made and it mechanically dismissed the petition. The dissolution of marriage has not only affected the future of parties but also the legitimacy of their children. A request has, therefore, been made to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

7. Respondent-wife has opposed the appeal and has requested that no reasonable ground is submitted by the appellan