PARMILESH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -wife has filed this appeal against the lower Court's order dated 6. 11. 1995 whereby her petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was declined.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the facts of the case is that the respondent-husband Vinod Kumar filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant-wife on 7. 9. 1993. It was ordered that the respondent-wife in that petition be noticed. Notice in an ordinary process could not be served. On 3. 1. 1994 the District Judge, Rohtak passed the order that fresh notice be sent for the respondent for 3. 2. 1994 on submission of fresh process fee and correct address. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 3. 2. 1994. On 3. 2. 1994 it was ordered that as the respondent has refused to accept the service by registered post and has not appeared, she was proceeded ex parte. On 7. 2. 1994 ex parte evidence of the husband-Vinod Kumar was recorded and on the same date the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was decided in his favour. The appellant-wife filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 3. 3. 1994 challenging that in the Hindu Marriage Act case No. 65 of 1993 she was never served; she never refused to accept any notice and only on 16. 2. 1994 she came to know that her husband has obtained an exparte decree against her in the aforementioned case on 7. 2. 1994. Hence, she claimed that the ex parte decree be set aside.

(3.) IN support of their allegations, parties adduced their evidence. The learned District Judge scanned the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the notice sent to the appellant by registered post was refused by her. She was, thus, properly served, but despite service she declined to appear in the said case, which thereafter proceeded ex parte. Thus, she has failed to prove sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte judgment.