NIRMAL Vs. SANGEETHA P.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent herein and he approached the Family court, Thrissur, by filing a petition under section 13(1)(i -a)(i -b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. The court below passed an ex parte decree on 10.1.2014, on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent herein approached the Family court by filing I.A. No. 593/14 in O.P. No. 818/13 to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed by order dated 2.6.2014 and a copy of which is produced as Ext. P3. It is against Ext. P3, the respondent therein, who is the husband, preferred the above original petition praying inter alia to call for the records in O.P. No. 818/13 of the Family court, Thrissur and to pass order setting aside Ext. P3 order and also prayed to declare that Ext. P2 petition is not maintainable.

(2.) HEARD Sri C.D. Dileep, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Ramachandran Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) ON knowing about the ex parte decree in the above proceedings, the wife/respondent therein preferred I.A. No. 593/14 in O.P. No. 818/13. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of Ext. P2 petition. As per the affidavit, the case of the wife/the respondent therein is that she was not served with the summons in the said case and she came to know about the proceedings and the ex parte order and ex parte decree, only subsequently through a third party and immediately thereafter, she contacted her advocate and applied for a certified copy of the order and decree and other documents. In the said affidavit, she asserted that no notice was served on her either through ordinary court process or by way of registered post or through any other means to her residence or to her place of work. According to her, in the cause title, her residential address was shown wrongly and she was not residing at Kozhikode. According to her, after completing Post Graduation in DNB from Calicut Government Medical College on 19.9.2013, she was residing at Mangalore. So, according to the deponent, the wife/respondent herein, her address was wrongly shown in the cause title and it is for that reason, no notice was served on her residential address. In the impugned order, the learned Judge, on going through the proceedings, specifically found that on the basis of the intimation given at the address of the petition, the service was presumed and consequently found that no direct service of summons or notice was effected on the petitioner. Accordingly held that, the petitioner is entitled to get an order to set aside the decree. Thus, the said I.A. was allowed.