RAVI KUMAR Vs. RENU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the order dated 09.05.2012, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties were asked to appear before the said centre on 06.07.2012. However, the parties did not appear and fresh notices were issued to them as well as their counsel for 02.08.2012. On the said date, notices to both the parties were not received back, however, counsel for both the parties were served but none appeared. Accordingly, fresh notices were issued to both the parties as well as their counsel for 30.08.2012. On the said date, again notices were not received back served or otherwise. As per office report, counsel for both the parties were served but even, they did not appear. So, fresh notices were ordered to be issued to both the parties as well as their counsel for 20.09.2012. On 20.09.2012, notices to both the parties were not received back. Fresh notices were ordered to be issued to both the parties as well as their counsel for 09.10.2012. On 09.10.2012, again notices issued to both the parties were not received back. However, counsel for both the parties were served but they were not present. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the parties and fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the parties as well as their counsel. The case was adjourned to 09.11.2012. On 09.11.2012, notices issued to the parties were not received back and neither their counsel were present. Notices to the parties as well as their counsel were ordered to be issued for 04.12.2012. On 04.12.2012, notices issued to both the parties were not received back. As per office report, counsel for both the parties were served but even, they were not present. Fresh notices were ordered to be issued to both the parties as well as their counsel for 09.01.2013. On 09.01.2013, the case was not taken up, as a period of 90 days for completing the mediation / conciliation proceedings, as required in terms of Rule 17 of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules had expired. Accordingly, the case was referred back to this Court. Counsel for the parties were informed of the date fixed.

(2.) In the pre-lunch session, when the case was taken up, counsel for the appellant was not present. In the post-lunch session, counsel for the respondent is not present. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate has submitted that he has sent three registered letters to Ravi Kumar appellant/husband and they have not been replied. He, therefore, pleads no instructions. It may be noticed that despite notices issued to the parties, they have not responded. Mere fact that the notices were not received back per se does not mean that these were not received by the parties. Besides, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he has addressed three registered letters to the appellant and these have not been responded to and learned counsel has pleaded no instructions. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the matter.

(3.) Respondent Renu Sharma filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage, that was solemnized between the parties on 18.09.2007 at Tarna Temple, Mandi Town, District Mandi (Himanchal Pradesh), on the ground of cruelty and mental illness. Learned District Judge, Narnaul, in terms of the order dated 11.03.2011, found that appellant/husband had treated the respondent/wife with cruelty. Marriage between them was dissolved by a decree of divorce in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short). Aggrieved against the same, the appellant/husband has filed the present appeal.