PRABHA SHARMA Vs. JUDGE FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex -parte decree for divorce was granted in favour of the respondent husband on November 7, 1990 by the Family Court No. 5, Bandra, Mumbai. The appellant wife instituted a suit for setting aside the said decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur with the averments that the respondent husband obtained the said decree by reason of fraud and deception practised on her. Learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur vide its order dated October 22, 1999 returned the suit to the appellant wife for its presentation in the competent Court on the ground that no cause of action arose to the appellant wife within the jurisdiction at Jaipur. Against this order of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur that the action for filing the instant miscellaneous appeal has been resorted to by the appellant wife.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the plaint by the appellant, she was married to the respondent on July 4, 1979 at Jaipur. After marriage the appellant and respondent lived together and out of wedlock two sons were born. The behaviour of the respondent with the appellant though gradually became cruel yet she used to perform her matrimonial duties. In the month of October, 1989 when the appellant had come to Jaipur to her parents' house, she received a notice along with petition seeking dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent from the Family Court No. 5, Bandra, Mumbai (for short the 'Mumbai Court'). She went to Mumbai and on November 8, 1989 submitted three petitions in the Mumbai Court for inspection of documents, expenses pendent lite and for guardianship of her two sons. On a report of the appellant the Bombay Police also started investigation against the respondent. The case at Mumbai Court was adjourned to January 25, 1990. Looking to the fact that the Bombay Police became active the respondent surrendered himself before the appellant. He took her to his house and assured to behave with her in future properly. The appellant believed him and started living with him. Thereafter the respondent persuaded the appellant to go to Jaipur to look after his family fabrication workshop and help him. He also promised her to open a new workshop in her house at Jaipur. The appellant left for Jaipur on January 8, 1990 but as an abundant caution she intimated this fact to the Mumbai Police. After some time the respondent also came to Jaipur and told the appellant that he had no intention to divorce her. The divorce petition was submitted by him only to save himself from income tax troubles. He did assure her not to press the divorce petition further and asked her not to attend the Mumbai Court on the next dates. The behaviour of respondent in those days was so cordial that the appellant was hypnotized and the respondent got her signatures on the blank papers. The appellant went to the Mumbai Court last time on January 25, 1990. The appellant and the respondent thereafter lived together as husband and wife at Mumbai and Jaipur. In 1995, the appellant was sent to Jaipur and she undertook training in Detergent Chemical Course. On October 28, 1998 when the appellant suddenly checked the brief case of the respondent at Jaipur she found a copy of the ex -parte decree of dissolution of their marriage. Thereafter she filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur for setting aside the said decree.

(3.) A close look at the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Family Court, Jaipur analysed in detail the averments of the plaint and finally observed that no fraud was committed by the respondent with the appellant. The suit was not found, maintainable in Jaipur Court. We cannot approve the act of the learned Family Court in dissecting the averments of the plaint and to arrive at a conclusion that the averments were false. Object of Order 7 Rule 1, C.P.C. and function of the particulars required thereunder is to present a full picture with sufficient details of the cause of action and the jurisdiction, so as to make the opposite party understand the case. All the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction should be set out in the plaint and the Court has to take the plaint allegations at their face value.