AMARJIT SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the impugned order, dated May 7, 1981, the appellant's prayer for setting aside the decree of divorce granted against him on March 12, 1979, at the instance of the respondent wife, has been declined by the trial Court (Additional District Judge, Ludhiana).

(2.) In the petition, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) the appellant was proceeded against ex parte on March 1, 1979, as he failed to appear in Court in response to the summons claimed to have been served on him through affixation and the decree was granted in favour of the respondent on March 12, 1979 on the basis of the ex parte evidence led against him. The case put forward by the appellant in his application, dated April 11, 1979, under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, was that as a matter of fact he had never been served with any notice and it was Amar Singh (R.W. 2), father of the respondent who in connivance with Rajinder Singh, Process server (R.W. 1) secured a wrong report of his service. According to him, he came to know of the ex-parte decree for the first time on April 9, 1979, when one of his aunts, Mrs. Pritam Kaur (A.W. 1) who had approached the respondent's parents to bring about a reconciliation between the parties to the litigation and had been informed by the respondent's father that she had already obtained an ex parte decree against the appellant from the Court of the Additional District Judge, informed him all about it. In support of this plea of his he not only examined Pritam Kaur and other witnesses including himself but also pleaded that on February 25, 1979, that is, the day on which the Process-server claims to have gone to his residence and alleges to have effected services on him, he was not in the house from 4.30 A.M. till sunset and was away to a temple known as 'Kali Ka Bhawan' in the suburb of Ludhiana town in connection with the Shivratri celebrations. He claims himself to be a devotee of Kali Mata. To negative this claim of the appellant, the respondent did not choose to step into the witness-box but, however, examined the Process-server Rajinder Singh (R.W. 1), her father, Amar Singh (R.W. 2) and Babu Ram, R.W. 3 to support the validity of the proceedings that had been taken against him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant now contends that not only the lower court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record, but also maintains that there has been no service of summons at all on the appellant in the eye of law. In support of his latter mentioned contention, the learned counsel points out that :-