RAJ KUMARI Vs. DHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class. Ludhiana, declining to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellant on March 6, 1974, for restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds that neither the application filed by her under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as within time nor was she able to make out any sufficient cause for setting aside of the same.

(2.) The prevalent facts of the use as alleged by the appellant are that when she recoved an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, the respondent-husband took up the defence that she was not entitled to any maintenance as he had got desert or declined to maintain her and had rather obtained a decree on March 6, 1974 against her for restitution of conjugal rights. He, however, proceed a copy of the decree in those proceedings for the first time on November 25, 1978. On this the appellant got the revlent file inspected and learnt that the decree had been obtained against her through means. This led to the filing of the application by her under Order Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) As a result of the trial, the lower Court has found that the appellant in fact engaged not one but two lawyers, i.e. Shri S.K. Uppal and Shri Jagdish Mohan Sud to defend her in those proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. Both of these gentlemen have appeared as witnesses R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 respectively and deposed that Raj Kumari appellant engaged them as her lawyers for conducting the proceedings on her behalf in the case against her for restitution of conjugal rights. They duly proved the power of attorney executed in their favour and the written statement filed on her behalf. In fact, the appellant has admitted her signatures on the Vakalatnama, copy of which is Ex. R. 1 and the written statement filed on her behalf, copy of which is Ex. K. 2. From the original record it is further clear that she has signed the written statement not at one but two places. In the face of this weighty evidence, it is difficult to accept her explanation that her husband Dhari Lal respondent had been obtaining her signatures on blank papers few years prior to the date when she launched proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though this statement on the face of it is not believable yet she has no explanation whatsoever as to how her signatures appeared on the Vakalatnama also. She has not stated anywhere that her husband used to get incomplete Vakalatnamas signed from her.