SWATI AGARWAL Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 10.6.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bundi whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts as emerge from the perusal on record are that on the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Family Court, Bundi, vide its judgment dated 30.3.2016, passed ex-parte decree of divorce against the appellant. On coming to know of the ex-parte decree against her, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the same pleading that she was never served with the notices of the divorce petition resulting into the ex-parte decree. The application has been rejected vide order impugned as stated hereinabove.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent-husband, in spite of having knowledge that the appellant-wife was residing at New Delhi and was serving there, deliberately and intentionally shown the appellant to be resident of Sahibabad, District Gaziabad (UP) in the cause title. Therefore, the summon of the appellant sent through registered post at the wrong address could not have been reckoned as "sufficient service " when the envelope was received back with the endorsement "refused ". It was submitted that while rejecting the application, the learned Family Court did not appreciate that the Postman (CW1) has categorically stated during his deposition that he was unaware as to who has refused to accept the registered letter containing summon. It was further contended that the learned Family Court did not appreciate the other relevant evidence filed by the appellant in the shape of rent note to show that at the relevant time, she was residing at Delhi and not at Sahibabad, District Gaziabad. It was, therefore, prayed that the order dated 10.6.2019 as well as the ex-parte decree dated 30.3.2016 be set aside.