K. NARAYANASWAMY Vs. SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband who filed a petition in O.P. No. 102 of 1974 for an annulment of his marriage with the respondent is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex parts decree passed against her in O.P. No. 102 of 1974 on 1st November, 1974. The respondent stated in her affidavit that she and the petitioner were living in the house of the petitioner as husband and wife till 15th June, 1973, and thereafter misunderstandings arose between them as a result of which she was driven out and later she came to know that the petitioner was making arrangements to marry another girl. According to the respondent, she preferred a police complaint to prevent that marriage when she was confronted with an ex parte Order of annulment of marriage between them in O.P. No. 102 of 1974, and it was then that she came to know that the petitioner had made it appear as if she had received the summons and had remained absent in the proceedings. Therefore she claimed that the order in O.P. No. 102 of 1974 dated 1st November, 1974, obtained by the petitioner should be set aside as she was not aware of the proceedings and as she had not deliberately remained absent after knowledge of the proceedings and therefore she must be given an opportunity to put forward her defence in the petition filed by the petitioner for annulment of the marriage in O.P. No. 102 of 1974.

(2.) THE petitioner who resisted the application disputed the marriage with the respondent and further denied that he ever ill treated the respondent and drove her away to her parent's house. It was also further denied by him that he withheld knowledge of the proceedings from the respondent. According to him, there was no marriage at all between him and the respondent never lived with him as his wife and he was compelled to affix his signature in a document dated 15th June, 1973, and therefore the petition ought to be dismissed.

(3.) IN this civil revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no obligation whatever in a proceeding which falls under Order 9, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, to give notice to the other side and the omission to give any notice to the respondent in I.A. No. 902 of 1974 does not in any manner vitiate the further proceedings. In order to support this contention, the learned Counsel relies on the language of Order 9, Rule 9 and contends that in the absence of any provision as found in Order 9, Rule 9(2) in Order 9, Rule 4, the setting aside of the ex parte order without notice and the further proceedings taken therein will not in any manner be vitiated.