Advocates:
['ARVIND SAMDARIYA', '', 'JAGA RAM NAI', 'DILEEP KAWADIA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 311/2022

Surendra Singh S/o Hari Singh Rajput, Aged About 32 Years,

Nathji Ka Kheda, Tehsil Sahda, District Bhilwara

----Appellant

Versus

Bhagwat Kanwar, Nathji Ka Kheda, Tehsil Sahda, District

Bhilwara

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr.Arvind Samdariya.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Vivek Sidh.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

J U D G M E N T

14/03/2022

The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant

Surendra Singh for assailing the order dated 25.11.2021 passed

by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case

No.6/2019, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

preferred by the respondent Smt.Bhagwat Kanwar was accepted

and the ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the

Family Court on 27.4.2017 on the application of the appellant

herein was set aside and a further direction was given to restore

the divorce application on its original number for being proceeded

and decided as per law.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned order.

Shri Arvind Samdariya learned counsel representing the

appellant vehemently and fervently urges that the respondent

(2 of 3)

[CMA-311/2022]

deliberately avoided accepting the notices issued by the Family

Court and thus, there was no option with the Family Court but to

accept the application for divorce filed by the appellant.

Shri Vivek Sidh learned counsel representing the respondent

opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel and

urges that as a matter of fact, the appellant cheated the

respondent as well as the court in the matter of getting the

process served upon the respondent. Service was never effected

and a false report was managed by the appellant. The respondent

was staying in the matrimonial home and the place of her

residence was fraudulently shown at her parental home and the

notices were got returned by marking an incorrect note of refusal.

Attention of the court was drawn to the statement of the appellant

recorded in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. wherein,

he admitted that Bhagwat Kanwar was residing in one of his

houses at Nath-Ka-Kheda. Shri Sidh further pointed out that the

appellant remarried another woman just within a period of ten

days from the date of issuance of the divorce decree dated

27.4.2017, which was fraudulently procured from the Family

Court.

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced at

the bar and after going through the impugned order, we are of the

opinion that the Family Court was absolutely justified in accepting

the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13

C.P.C. There is prima-facie evidence available on record to satisfy

the Court that the report on the notices of the divorce application

was fraudulently stage-managed by the appellant herein and the

process was never served upon the respondent. The lady was

actually residing in one of the houses provided to her by the

(3 of 3)

[CMA-311/2022]

appellant whereas, her address was wrongly given out to be of her

parental village. Another strong indication of the fraudulent action

of the appellant is that he remarried another woman within a few

days of the issuance of the decree of divorce. Thus, we are of the

considered opinion that the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara is absolutely justified and

does not require any interference therein.

As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the appeal

lacks merit and is dismissed as such. Stay application is also

dismissed.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/ 45