RINA DEVI Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the respondent's petition, seeking dissolution, of, his marital ties, with, the petitioner herein, standing decreed ex-parte, (i) his spouse one Rina Devi, petitioner herein, through, an application cast, under, the provisions of Order 9, Rule, 13 of the CPC, espoused, for, the setting aside, of, the afore rendered ex-parte decree, of, 16.2.2016, (ii) and, on 3.1.2019, the afore application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court, hence, the instant petition, is, reared thereagainst, before this Court.

(2.) The ex-parte decree, stood pronounced, against her, on 16.2.2016, whereas, the afore application, came to be instituted, on 22.4.2016. A perusal of the proceedings maintained in HMA Pet No. 71-N/3 of 2014, unfold(s) that (i) the petitioner herein, after being personally served, through, ordinary mode of service, hers recording, her personal appearance before the learned trial Court, on 26.9.2014, (ii) and, thereafter the learned Court below, in her recorded presence, making an order qua the afore Hindu Marriage Petition, being listed, on, 11.12.2014, (iii) yet on the latter date, the petitioner herein, omitted to record, her personal appearance, before, the learned trial Court, and, hence, the latter was constrained to make an order, for hers being proceeded against ex-parte. Emphatically, when only, upon, hers pleading, and, proving, that, the afore ex-parte order, as, made against her, was ingrained, with, a legal fallacy, (iv) arising from hers not coming to be personally served through ordinary mode of service, her striving(s) would beget success. (v) Contrarily, the afore unfoldings, rather articulating qua hers, after being personally served, through, ordinary mode of service, hers recording, her personal appearance, before, the learned trial Court, on, 26.9.2014, (vi) thereupon, it was incumbent, upon, her, to, on the apt subsequent date, hence, ensure her personal appearance before the learned trial Court, or, to ensure representation being caused on her behalf, by, a duly constituted counsel. However, she, as aforestated, hence omitted to record either her personal appearance, therebefore, and, also omitted to authorize a counsel, to record his appearance, on her behalf, before the learned trial Court, hence, on 11.12.2014, (vii) hence, she is not capacitated, to contend that the afore legal fallacy, hence, ingrains, the afore ex-parte rendition, made, upon, Hindu Marriage Petition No. 71-N/3 of 2014.

(3.) The effects of hers being personally served through ordinary mode of service, for 26.9.2016, (i) is qua it hence being enjoined, upon, her to therefrom, and, upto the apposite ex-parte, decree being pronounced against her, hence mete, a, valid explication qua hers not, within 90 days computed from 11.12.2014, hence omitting to seek, the, setting aside, of, the order recorded, on 11.12.2014, by the learned trial Court, (ii) wherethrough, it directed qua hers being proceeded against ex-parte. However, the afore explication, is, grossly amiss, rather she avers in the extant application qua hers attending, the, apt proceedings, drawn, before the learned trial Court, on, 11.12.2014, (iii) and, explicates qua hers thereafter omitting, to, cause her personal appearance before the learned trial Court, nor hers engaging a validly constituted counsel, for, defending the lis, rather being sparked, from, on, 11.12.2014, hers encountering, her husband, one Kundan Singh, outside the court premises, (iv) and, his apprising her, that, since the case appertaining, to, grant of maintenance, as, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., comprising the apposite pending lis, before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, (v) hence, the Hindu Marriage Petition, being finally disposed off, (vi) hence, she contends that the subsequent failure(s) being condonable, and, also contend(s), that, she is not enjoined, to mete, any further explication, from, 11.12.2014, and, upto the ex-parte rendition, being recorded against her, (vii) and, appertaining to the period, of, limitation validly commencing therefrom, and, hers being thereupon hence precluded or deterred, by, the, afore good sufficient cause, to, fail, to, recourse, the, apt legal mechanism(s), for, setting aside the ex-parte rendition, as made, against her, (viii) despite hers failing to cause, her, personal appearance before, the learned trial Court or through her authorised counsel. However, the afore averment in consonance wherewith she has made, a, testification, is, rid of truth, as, in her cross-examination, as, conducted by the counsel for the respondent herein, she has acquiesced, vis-a-vis, hers being completely rather estranged from her husband, for, the last 8 to 9 years, and, during the afore period, hers not holding any communication, with her husband. The further effect thereof, is that, upon, the afore explication, as, made in her application, upon, being entwined with the afore testification, hence rendering, it, to stand underwhelmed, and, the further effects thereof, are, that the ex-parte rendition made against her, in the apposite Hindu Marriage Petition, being unamenable, for its, being set aside.