GHANSHYAM TANDON Vs. ARUNA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant / plaintiff - Ghanshyam Tandon filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the non-applicant herein in which notice was said to have been served to the non-applicant on 10-3-2015 for her appearance on 19-3-2015, but on 19-3-2015, the trial Judge proceeded on leave and the Reader of the Court fixed the date of hearing as 7-4-2015. However, since the non-applicant herein did not appear on 7-4-2015, the trial Court proceeded ex parte on 7-4-2015 and ultimately, granted decree of dissolution of marriage on 30-9-2015.

(2.) On 18-2-2016, the non-applicant herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree stating that she came to know about the decree on 20-1-2016 from Police Station Bacheli that decree for divorce has been passed in favour of the applicant herein. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 11-1-2017 holding that sufficient cause has been shown for non-appearance when the suit was called-up for hearing and the dispute relates to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. Questioning that order, the instant revision has been preferred by the husband.

(3.) Miss S. Harshita, learned counsel appearing for the applicant / plaintiff - husband, would submit that the non-applicant was served with notice on 10-3-2015 for hearing on 19-3-2015 and as such, by virtue of the second proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9 of the CPC, the nonapplicant had the notice of date of hearing and sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim and, therefore, it will not be treated as a ground to set aside the decree mainly on the ground that there has been irregularity in service of notice under the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.