GARIMA SINGH Vs. SANJAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the revisional/supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing of order dated 19.2.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur, in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1996 by which an application moved by her under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce dated 27.3.1995 allegedly obtained by the respondent/husband, a sitting Rajya Sabha Member, by means of a fraud upon the Court has been rejected as not maintainable. PETITIONER's grievance is that her sacrosanct marriage with the respondent performed in the year 1973 as per Hindu customary rites and ceremonies at Allahabad has been dissolved by the impugned decree behind her back, thereby not only stripping her of her marital status but also the dignity and honour of a married Hindu wife. PETITIONER alleges that a collusive suit for decree of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act was got filed by the respondent through an impostor in impersonating the petitioner Smt. Garima Singh and thus fraudulently obtained the impugned decree of divorce dated 27.3.95.

(2.) SINCE fraud on the Court and serious irregularities in the conduct of the case have been alleged, therefore, it is necessary to narrate the facts as averred by the petitioner in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in detail, the same are as follows :- Suit No. 78 of 1995 was instituted on 25.2.1995 by one Smt. Garima Singh, claiming to be the wife of Sri Sanjai Singh, the respondent herein, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying that by means of a decree of divorce, her marriage with Sri Sanjai Singh, respondent, resident of Lucknow be dissolved. It was averred in the suit that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 14.12.1973 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Allahabad and the parties last resided together till 2.4.1992 at Sitapur. Out of the said wedlock three children, now aged between 18 years to 12 years were born. The sole ground on which the dissolution of marriage was sought was stated in para 4 of the said petition, "that with the passage of time, disputes due to difference of opinion even in petty matters arose between the parties to this petition and it has become quite impossible for them to live together." Complete desertion was stated to be with effect from 2.4.1992, i.e., the date since when the respondent/husband is residing at Lucknow. It was specifically averred in para 8 of this petition that there was no collusion between the parties. The cause of action was said to have accrued on 2.4.1992 when husband and wife finality parted company at Sitapur to live separately. The territorial jurisdiction therefore, was also claimed at Sitapur. The suit was valued for the purpose of pecuniary Jurisdiction at Rs. 50,000/. However, a fixed court-fee of Rs. 37.50 was affixed on the petition for divorce. Interestingly a photograph of young Smt Garima Singh was affixed on the first page of the petition.

(3.) THEREAFTER it is stated that a news item was published in the daily newspaper The Pioneer' on 23.4.1995 viz. "Sanjai Singh marries Amita". Reading the said news, the petitioner was shocked. She Immediately contacted the respondent on telephone who accepted that a decree of divorce has been passed by a competent Court of Law. The respondent however did not disclose to the petitioner that the decree was passed by the Civil Judge at Sitapur. It is only on 25.7.1995 that the respondent while he was at Lucknow, on persistent queries being made by the petitioner and her father, disclosed that the decree for divorce was granted by the Court of Civil Judge at Sitapur and he married Amita Modi on 21.4.95. It is only thereafter that the petitioner immediately rushed to Sitapur and engaged an Advocate who inspected the record which revealed that the aforesaid civil suit for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act was instituted in the name of Smt. Garima Singh, petitioner herein against the opposite party which was decided on 27.3.1995. Her counsel who inspected the file took all the necessary details of the suit and the proceedings and informed the petitioner accordingly.