BINAYA BHUSAN PATTNAIK Vs. SUJATA PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. No.II, Bhubaneswar in C.R.P. No. 5/13 of 2007 is called in question. While disposing of the said revision, the learned Addl. District Judge confirmed the order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.335 of 2003, whereby the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has allowed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as the "Code" for brevity,filed by the present opposite party and set aside the decree dated 14.02.2001 and restored the suit to the original position.

(2.) The present petitioner filed an application for dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, which was registered as C.S. No.83 of 1998. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 07.02.2001. The present opposite party filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code to set aside the ex parte order. In that petition, she averred that she had married the present petitioner on 15.04.1993. Five years after marriage in 1998, the petitioner drove her out of the marital home and avoided to take her back on some pretext or other. In May, 2003, the opposite party came to know that the petitioner is trying to marry for the second time, for which she lodged a complaint on 29.05.2003 before the Mahila Police Station. During enquiry, the petitioner showed an ex parte decree of divorce dated 07.02.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.83 of 1998, for which police did not lodge the F.I.R. On verification of the record, the present opposite party (wife) came to know that the petitioner had intentionally given a wrong address in the petition for divorce. Taking advantage of such wrong address, the petitioner has managed to obtain a decree fraudulently.

(3.) The petitioner (husband) filed objection in the said interim application contending therein that the address given by the opposite party in the original suit is correct and the opposite party is not residing in Chintamaniswar Canal Colony. It is further contended that the opposite party avoided to take delivery of summons, for which the summons was held sufficient on 10.09.1999 and she was set ex parte. Subsequently, the notice was published in "The Pragatibadi" on 25.04.2000 and the same was held sufficient vide order dated 08.05.2000. In spite of such service of notice, the opposite party did not contest and the petitioner married for the second time on 25.11.2001, which was known to the opposite party and her relations. The present petitioner claimed that a petition to set aside the ex parte decree has been filed with an intention to harass the petitioner.