VIJAY PRAKASH CHATURVEDI Vs. PREETI CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in CMJC No. 09/2017 thereby allowing the application preferred by the non-applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. as well as the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The applicant and non-applicant has solemnized their marriage on 11.05.2003 at Rewa by Hindu Religious and Rites. After the marriage, the applicant has been maltreated by the non-applicant in cruel manner by way of threatening as well as insisting to the applicant for resignation from his services. The applicant, therefore, filed an application under Section 13(i)(a) and (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce. After recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2007 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2007, the applicant has filed F.A. No. 03/2008 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the applicant and non-applicant started residing separately at Delhi and the applicant has continuously paid the maintenance amount to the nonapplicant. The non-applicant continuously misbehave with the applicant. The non-applicant has also made false report before the Dwarika Police Station, Delhi as well as in the office of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the applicant has filed an application under Section 13(1)1(Ka), 1(Kha) and 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna against the non-applicant. The applicant paid the process fee for appearance of the non-applicant by registered post on both the addresses i.e. Rewa and Delhi through both ways. But the non-applicant did not appear before the Family Court Satna, even the notices were served upon her. Therefore, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the nonapplicant and passed the judgement and decree dated 28.02017 thereby allowing the applicant's application for divorce.

(3.) The non-applicant thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limiation Act before the Family Court, Satna for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree dated 28.02.2017 on the ground that the notices were not served upon her because the applicant has mentioned incorrect address of her. So far as, publication of notice in the news paper is concerned, she has stated that she has not read the daily news paper and, therefore, she has not aware about the filing of the divorce application. It has stated that for the first time, she came to know about the impugned judgement and decree when she went to the applicant's house and at that time the family members of the applicant show the judgement of the Family Court. Thereafter, she has filed the present application for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree.