ARVIND SINGH BHADORIYA Vs. KUNTI BHADORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 25-1-2008 passed by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, allowing thereby an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code of the non-applicant.

(2.) REVISIONIST got married to non-applicant on 4-2-1995 at village Lona, District Jalaun (U.P.). They resided together at Station Road, Gohad Chauraha, Dist. Bhind (M.P.) up to 6-8-2005. REVISIONIST submitted an application for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground under section 13(l)(a) and (b) of Hindu Marriage Act on 8-6-1999 wherein address of the non-applicant was shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Process Server submitted a report that the non-applicant was not residing at the said address. Similarly, the notice sent by registered post came back unserved on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected under Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and ex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce in favour of the revisionist was passed on 14-1-2000. Non-applicant came to know about it on 4-2-2006 during the proceedings before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun, Camp Orai. Non-applicant, thereafter submitted an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 14-2-2006 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act mainly with the allegations that her address was wrongly shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. There was a clear report of the process server that there was no residence of non-applicant at the said address. Notice issued by registered post came back unserved on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected by way of affixation under Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. It is stated that the non-applicant used to reside with the applicant himself which was suppressed. REVISIONIST used to insist for dowry which could not be accepted, therefore, the non-applicant was beaten badly and was brought to her father in an unconscious condition by the revisionist as well as her brother-in-law Gyanveer Sikarwar. She was, thus, left at her father's place in Orai on 7-8-2005. A complaint was lodged by the non- applicant with the Police Station Jalaun. After due investigation, case was registered against the revisionist and challan has already been submitted in the Court. REVISIONIST and other co-accused were served with the notices. Thereafter; the revisionist submitted a Criminal Revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun, Camp at Orai which was fixed to 4-2-2006. When the non-applicant appeared before the said Court she came to know, for the first time, that an ex-parte judgment and decree for divorce has been obtained by the revisionist on 14-1-2000. Thereafter, the non-applicant contacted her lawyer who after due inspection of the record of Case No. 108A/99 HMA submitted an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. Another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted for condonation of delay.

(3.) SHRI Chaturvedi and SHRI Gupta, learned counsel, made their submissions in support of their respective stands.