SANDEEP SHARMA Vs. JUHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband alongwith respondent-wife had moved an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after engaging separate counsels on 1.5.2017. After recording the statements of the parties at first motion on 2.5.2017, the case was adjourned for 8.11.2017 for recording the statements of the parties at second motion. On 8.11.2017, when the case was taken up for recording of the statements of the parties at second motion, the appellant-husband alongwith his counsel was present but no one had put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-wife, as such the petition was held not maintainable on account of non appearance of the respondent-wife and the case was dismissed in default with liberty to the parties to get their matter regarding recovery settled separately in accordance with law.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant has contended that the statements recorded at first motion could have been considered as an admission and a decree as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC could have been passed.

(3.) We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and are of the opinion that the appellant could have moved the trial Court for any of the following reliefs:-