SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. VEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, Veena Kumari respondent -wife of Subhash Chander petitioner -husband, has instituted a divorce petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). On 23.8.1991, Sh.C.D.Pada, Advocate appeared on behalf of husband and filed his power of attorney (Vakalatnama). The case was adjourned to 29.8.1991. As on that day, Mr.C.D.Pada, Advocate pleaded no instructions, therefore, the exparte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner -husband by the trial Court, vide order dated 29.8.1991.

(2.) HAVING completed all the codal formalities, the divorce petition was accepted and the marriage of the parties was dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated 26.9.1991. The husband slept over the matter and ultimately moved an application on 2.5.1996 (after 4 1/2 years), to set aside the pointed decree of divorce under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that he was not served with any notice in the divorce petition. He was dishonestly and fraudulently induced to sign the power of attorney (Vakalatnama) by his wife. According to the husband, he came to know about the ex parte decree of divorce only on 26.4.1996. That being so, he prayed for setting aside the indicated ex parte decree.

(3.) SEQUELLY , the wife refuted the prayer of husband, filed the reply, inter -alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the application, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. She claimed that the husband was duly served. He himself engaged his counsel and signed power of attorney (vakalatnama) to appear on his behalf. It was pleaded that in the month of January, 1993, her husband visited her residence and started quarreling with her. She turned him out of her house. Again on 3.3.1993 and 5.3.1993, he along with his brother -in -law N.C.Wadhwa and some ladies came to her house, gave beatings and threatened her with dire consequences. She made complaint to the SSP, in which, the factum of decree of divorce was mentioned. The police called both the parties and the matter was compromised, vide compromise (mark - C) signed by the parties and attested by the witnesses. In all, according to wife, the husband was duly served, he himself engaged his counsel and no ground to set aside the ex parte decree of divorce at this belated stage is made out. It will not be out of place to mention here that she has stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the application of the husband and prayed for its dismissal.