RAM KRISHAN Vs. GEETA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/husband has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.6.2010 (P3) passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the application filed by Petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned order that the learned District Judge while dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner has noticed that Petitioner/husband had been intentionally avoiding his appearance and ultimately he was served through publication. Thereafter, when the Petitioner again did not appear for reconciliation despite Court order, Respondent/wife moved an application stating therein that since Petitioner/husband was not appearing for reconciliation, necessary order be passed. The Petitioner/husband neither filed any reply to the said application nor put in appearance and accordingly he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 6.4.2010. On 4.5.2010 when the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence, the Petitioner/husband did not appear personally and rather moved an application through his counsel Sh. Nitian Sharma for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. The Court granted indulgence and the ex parte order was set aside. Thereafter the case was fixed for filing reply to the application for non-appearance of the Petitioner/husband for reconciliation as also for filing reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, moved by the Respondent/wife. It is further apparent from the impugned order that though reply to the application for non-appearance of the Petitioner/husband for reconciliation was filed through his counsel but the Petitioner again chose not to appear nor he filed reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter the matter was listed on 18.5.2010 for consideration of the application for non-appearance of the Petitioner for reconciliation as well as for filing reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 18.5.2010 though the Petitioner appeared but reconciliation could not be effected accordingly the case was adjourned to 25.5.2010 for filing reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 25.5.2010 neither the Petitioner appeared nor he was represented by any counsel and accordingly the Petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and the case was adjourned for ex parte evidence of the Respondent/wife for 1.6.2010. On 1.6.2010 the Petitioner appeared through his counsel and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. Reply to the said application was filed and after considering the same the learned District Judge dismissed the application of the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings holding that the Petitioner/husband has not been appearing intentionally and thus playing delaying tactics only to harass the Respondent/wife.