PRAKASH Vs. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.06.2013 made in I.A.No.25 of 2013 in H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

(2.) The petitioner/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District against the respondent/wife for divorce. The respondent did not appear before the Court and exparte decree was passed on 31.08.2010. The respondent filed I.A.No.25 of 2013 to condone the delay of 893 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree of divorce. According to the respondent, notice through Court Amin was not served on her. The petitioner by playing fraud, created documents as though notice sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due was served on the respondent. She came to know that the petitioner has got married again and when she gave a complaint in All Women Police Station, wherein a copy of the exparte decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram was furnished to her. She has approached the legal aid and through Mr.R.Subbramanian, Advocate, the legal aid, the respondent came to know about the exparte decree obtained by the petitioner by making false allegations against her. In fact petitioner promised to take her back and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the respondent, inspite of intervention of elders, did not join the petitioner. Notice sent by the Court through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due was served on the respondent, but she did not appear. After two years of decree of divorce, the petitioner got married to one Kavitha on 30.11.2012 who is a widow and whose father is no more. The respondent was aware of the H.M.O.P filed by the petitioner and exparte decree and second marriage earlier. Only to harass the petitioner, the respondent has given false complaint before the All Women Police Station and prayed for dismissal of the application.