KANTI BAI Vs. RAMESH LAL KHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, against the order dtd. 14/9/2022, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2021, whereby the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to seek the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 6/8/2016, passed in O.S. No. 803 of 2015, Ramesh Lal Khare Vs Kanti Bai, has been dismissed, and, consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, has also been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was the wife of the respondent. Metrimonial disputes arose between them. The appellant was not residing with the respondent. She was residing in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The respondent preferred the aforesaid divorce petition under Sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to seek divorce on the ground of desertion. The appellant was served in those proceedings, and she filed her written statement, and also application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to seek maintenance, by post. Thus, it is established that the appellant was duly served in the proceedings, and it is not even claimed by her, that she was not served. Apart from sending her written statement, and the application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by post, she did not participate in the proceedings by engaging a lawyer, or appearing herself. Consequently, the case proceeded ex parte, and the Family Court allowed the divorce petition after recording ex parte evidence, vide judgment dtd. 6/8/2016.

(3.) Even thereafter, the appellant did not approach, either the Family court, or the Appellate Court, in time, to either seek the setting aside of the judgment and decree dtd. 6/8/2016, or, preferred an appeal against the same. She took her own sweet time, and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, after six years of the passing of the said judgment on 10/12/2021. The explanation furnished by the appellant was that, she was poor and did not have the resources to contest divorce proceedings, and it was for this reason that she has sent her written statement and an application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to seek maintenance, by post. The Family Court did not find merit in the application preferred by the appellant under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, as there was no reasonable justification offered by the appellant in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Consequently, the aforesaid two applications have been dismissed.