LEELA PANDE Vs. SACHENDRA KUMAR PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the wife against the decree for divorce in favour of the husband on the basis of her alleged admissions in her written statement and on the ground of adultery.

(2.) On 30-8-1990 the respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13( 1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the "Act"), against the appellant on the ground of adultery. On the first date of appearance, the appellant appeared with her counsel, but as the Presiding Officer was on leave, she again appeared with her counsel on the next date, i.e. on 12-10-1990 given by the Court Reader and filed her written statement, which contained her alleged admissions and on the basis of which a decree for divorce was granted on 7-12-1990 in her absence, but in the presence of her counsel without recording any statement either of the husband or of the wife or their counsel. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this appeal, mainly on the ground that the decree was obtained by fraud.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I was initially inclined to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the remedy of the wife was to file a separate suit for setting aside the impugned decree on the ground of fraud, but the learned Counsel for the appellant cited Raji Pachori v. Kamlesh Pachori, 1993 JLJ 561, and submitted that in similar circumstances, a similar decree for divorce was set aside by this Court. The aforesaid decision of this Court at least, gives a correct indication that the legality or otherwise of any decree even if based on admission can be examined. It is well settled that an ex parte decree or a decree based on compromise or admission cannot be lightly interfered with on allegations of fraud or sufficient cause for non-appearance; but it is permissible to show that a decree to be otherwise bad in law or perverse. In this context, I feel that the case requires consideration and accordingly, I proceed to do so.