S P SRIVASTAVA Vs. PREM LATA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the husband. He had filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The suit was decreed ex parte on the 2nd June, 1973. On the 15th April, 1976 Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava, hereinafter refrred to as the wife, made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree claiming that she came to Know only on the 15th April, 1976 about the ex parte decree. She also moved an application for temporary injunction on the 15th April, 1976 restraining the husband from marrying again. This injunction order was served on the 16th April, 1976. The husband had contracted a second marriage with one Pratima Devi on the 14th April, 1976. The trial court by its order dated 22nd December, 1977 set aside the ex parte decree. The husband has come up in revision against the above order.

(2.) In her application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the wife alleged that on the 13th April, 1976 she came to know that the husband was making preparation for his marriage at some other place. She then went to his house the next day where she came to know that the marital relations between her and the husband had been dissolved by a decree of the court about three years back. The papers were inspected on the 15th April, 1976 and she came to know that the summons of the divorce petition had been got served on her in collusion with the process server. It was also alleged that the summons was issued at the address of Mohalla Vindra-sini Nagar, Gorakhpur, and the witnesses who had attested the refusal of the summons were not residents of locality. On this basis she claimed for setting aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) The husband contested the application inter alia on the following grounds. She had knowledge of the divorce proceedings and the ex parte decree. The summons was served by refusal and had been attested by the witnesses of the locality. She had knowledge of the entire proceedings and never came to his house on the 14th April, 1976. The application had been made only after he had remarried and for the purpose of harassing him.