DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. S. ANURADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 21.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011. Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 was set aside. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-husband. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was aware of the passing of the ex parte decree in November, 2011. The said fact was evident from the cross-examination of AW-2, Narsimha Murthy. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the address given by the petitioner in the divorce petition was correct. The said fact was evident from Annexure P-2 wherein the respondent had herself given the same address as given by the petitioner in the divorce petition.

(2.) In the present case, petitioner and respondent were working in Singapore and met each other over there and fell in love. Petitioner and respondent got married at Vishakhapatnam on 2.6.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed the divorce petition against the respondent on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said petition was allowed in ex parte vide judgment/decree dated 21.10.2011. Thereafter, an application was moved by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree in question on 2.8.2012.

(3.) Case of the respondent was that no service had been effected on her. Petitioner was aware that respondent was residing at Singapore but had failed to give the said address for service of summons on her. On the other hand, case of the petitioner was that despite knowledge, respondent had failed to appear before the Trial Court in the divorce proceedings.