RAJ @ RAJE MASIH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-husband had obtained an ex parte decree vide judgment dated 13.11.2014 under Section 27 (2)(ii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on the ground that there has not been any restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for a period of more than one year after passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights dated 4.12.2012, decided ex-parte against the appellant-wife. The appellant-wife has challenged the abovesaid order inter alia on the ground that she had been wrongly proceeded against ex parte and that she did not have any knowledge about the earlier decree for restitution of conjugal rights dated 4.12.2012, which too was ex parte.

(2.) Without adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the grant of relief of dissolution of marriage to the respondenthusband under Section 27(2)(ii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for noncompliance of an ex-parte decree is apparently violative of rules. The decree of divorce has been passed and the marriage has been dissolved on account of default of the appellant-wife for not following the mandate of ex-parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights dated 4.1201 The respondenthusband appears to have adopted a clever device to misuse the statutory provisions of law without making an attempt to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Intention of the respondent-husband appears to be mala fide. The order dated 13.11.2014 is apparently a device to abuse the process of the law i.e. seeking divorce for non-implementation of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, which decree has been obtained ex-parte.

(3.) The lower Court seems to have been persuaded by the fact that the respondent had made efforts to send copy of the decree dated 4.12.2012. It is neither the pleading of the respondent nor the case of the respondent that he ever made any effort for executing the ex-parte decree, in accordance with law. The conduct of the respondent is also not above board to grant him a decree of divorce on account of the alleged default of the appellant.