KULDIP SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated October 29, 1984, whereby the exparte decree of divorce obtained by the husband Kuldip Singh against the wife Surinder Kaur dated January 19, 1977, was set aside.

(2.) KULDIP Singh petitioner (husband) filed a petition for divorce against his wife Surinder Kaur on the ground that she was living in adultery with his brother Joginder Singh was (husband's brother). Joginder Singh also arrayed as one of the respondents. He obtained an exprate decree on January 12, 1977, as it was reported by the process server that the wife has refused to accept service. Later on, in the year 1978 Kuldip Singh performed second marriage and also had children from that wedlock. Surinder Kaur wife filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on May 28, 1980, alleging that she never refused to accept service of the summons. Her husband secured false report in connivance with the process -server which resulted in passing of the exparte decree. She further maintained that the marriage between the parties, was solemnized in April, 1970 at village Kandiana, Tehsil Phillaur District Jullundur and she was blessed with a daughter as a result of cohabitation with her husband. But Kuldip Singh was maltreating her and turned her out. Thereafter, she along with her daughter started living with her brother at village Kandiana. She also maintained that she was never served personally in divorce proceedings and that she had filed an application under section 125. Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of maintenance for herself as well as for her minor daughter in the Court of Judicial Magistrates Ist, Class Jullundur, on September 28, 1979. Kuldip Singh, husband, filed his written statement therein on May 14, 1980, asserting that the relationship of husband and wife had come to on end with the passing of the decree of divorce on January 19, 1977. It was also alleged that Surinder Kaur, his wife, was well aware of the proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the application has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The other allegations made in the application were also controverted.

(3.) THE learned District Judge, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that Surinder Kaur was not validly served in the divorce proceedings. He further found that she came to know of the exparte decree of divorce for the first time on May, 14, 1980, when the husband appeared in the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, and filed his reply therein. Thus, the application filed on May 28, 1980, was within limitation. Consequently, exparte decree was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the husband has filed this petition in this Court.