RACHNA SINGH Vs. SUJEET @ GOUR GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arising out of the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in Misc. Civil Case No.7/2015 rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC filed by the appellant/wife for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012 of the divorce in Civil Suit No.121-A/2012 filed by the respondent/husband, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) On perusal of the facts of the case, a suit was filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. In the said suit, notices were issued to the appellant/wife by ordinary as well as registered post. The service of notice was accepted by Court due to refusal of the notice sent by registered post, to the appellant/wife. Though on the notice sent by ordinary mode, the complete address was not given. After the exparte judgment and decree and having its knowledge, application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the appellant/wife along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned trial Court in paragraph 19 of the impugned order has observed that on a notice sent by registered post, complete name and address which was written in the application filed by the wife for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree was mentioned. However, address on the notice sent and the address which was mentioned in the application is the same. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the noting of the postman regarding refusal to accept notice. In addition, it is said that if the notice has been served, there is a presumption as per the provisions of the Act in favour of the department. However, accepting the service of notice, Court has rightly proceeded against the appellant/wife and rightly passed the judgment and decree, which cannot be set aside merely on saying by the wife.