ANGREJ SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 1/11/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur vide which application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 29/4/2016 against the respondent was allowed.

(2.) Perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial Court has set aside the ex parte decree of divorce by appreciating the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining the same. The presence of the respondent in the matrimonial house was appreciated with reference to evidence viz. Ex.A-7, Ex.A-10, Ex.A-12 and Ex.A-14 during the relevant period. In the photographs Ex.A-48 to Ex.A-56, the respondent and the petitioner were seen together along with their children at the time of purchase of new car. The relevant receipts had been produced on record as Ex.A-128 to Ex.A-131 showing that the car was purchased from Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vide invoice Ex.A-126 dtd. 8/6/2016. The ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 29/4/2016 i.e. much prior thereto. It was proved that the respondent was residing in the matrimonial house even after passing of ex parte decree of divorce against her. Respondent also produced on record railway tickets dtd. 13/12/2016 and 14/1/2017 to prove that she had visited her matrimonial house during winter break in the year 2016-17.

(3.) The trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has betrayed the respondent while obtaining ex parte decree of divorce and thereafter he continued to have marital relations with the respondent even after ex parte divorce dtd. 29/4/2016. Though the respondent was served with the publication in the newspaper namely The Tribune, Chandigarh Edition but the said newspaper was not having any circulation in the Uttrakhand, where respondent was posted at the relevant time as Vice Principal in a School.