HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2308/2024 Vikram Sankhala S/o Rajendra Sankhala, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Thaliyo Ka Bass, Inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur Working Place - Vikram Sankhala, Post Head Casher Under Shrman Branch Manger, State Of Bank Of India Near Marudhar Petrol Pump, Nagaur Road, Bavadi, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus Smt. Sarita W/o Vikram, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Dhanraj Ji Gehlot, Presently Residing At C/o T Krishnamurti Halappa Circle, Navi Cross C Road, Bhadravathi, Shimoga, Karnataka ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Baghela For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhadrawati Sihoma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

09/01/2026

1. The instant appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment/order dated 24.04.2024 passed by learned Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.44/2022 (NCV No.10/2020) vide which an application filed by the respondent-wife under Order

9 Rule 13, CPC was allowed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on 13.12.2006 at Jodhpur as per Hindu customs and rites. From the wedlock, they have two children: a daughter Rachna (born 31.10.2007 with serious congenital ailments) and a son Priyansh (born

01.01.2016). Both children are residing with the respondent.

2.1 The respondent alleged that soon after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the appellant and his family. During her pregnancy, she was sent to her parental home in Karnataka, where she delivered a daughter suffering from multiple medical conditions requiring surgeries. The appellant and his family allegedly refused to visit, support treatment, or keep the child and even asked to kill the daughter.

2.2. In 2008, the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex parte. After compromise, the parties resumed cohabitation from 18.04.2010. As the appellant had a job in the bank in the village Kalu Anandpur, District Pal, due to lack of medical facilities and refusal by the appellant’s family, the daughter remained with her maternal grandparents in Karnataka.

2.3. The respondent alleged further harassment and monetary demands, including pressure to bring money for purchasing a house. Her father allegedly paid Rs.5 lakhs on 25.03.2018, and later the appellant demanded Rs.20 lakhs, assaulted her and the children, withdrew Rs.13 lakhs from their joint account, and expelled them from the matrimonial home on 11.04.2018. The respondent then went to Karnataka and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance.

2.4. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, without disclosing the birth of the son. Notice was received by the respondent on 14.01.2020. As she resided in Karnataka, her advocate sought time. On 29.02.2020, despite the advocate’s appearance, the court proceeded ex parte against the respondent and the hearing date was fixed on 31.03.2020. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the respondent informed the court by letter dated 20.07.2020, but ultimately an ex parte divorce decree was passed on 13.08.2020.

2.5. The respondent claimed she relied on her advocate, who failed to take proper steps and misled her about filing an application to set aside the decree. She later filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, citing lockdown restrictions, residence in Karnataka, and High Court notifications restraining adverse orders during the pandemic.

2.6. The appellant opposed the application, denying allegations of cruelty and dowry, asserting that the respondent deliberately remained absent, and stating that he regularly paid maintenance. He contended that after expiry of the appeal period, he remarried on 04.10.2020 and now has a child from the s