RAJ KUMARI Vs. NANDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order.

(2.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-10-95 passed by the Court of District Judge, Churu in Civil Misc. Case No. 22/94 whereby the trial Court allowed the application for divorce of the petitioner-respondent against the appellant and granted the decree for divorce.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that in present divorce petition, which was filed before the Court below the learned counsel for the appellant filed the power on 17/04/1995. On that day, the trial Court fixed the date of reconciliation between the parties on 20/05/1995. On that day both the parties were absent, therefore, matter was adjourned and fixed on 15/07/1995 for reconciliation. The non-petitioner-appellant did not turn up. The matter was again adjourned and date was fixed on 26/08/1995. On 26/08/1995 learned counsel for the appellant-non-petitioner pleaded no instruction. The respondent was present in Court and non-petitioner-appellant did not come in Court on 26/08/1995. Therefore, the trial Court passed the order to proceed ex parte. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded by the trial Court and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent passed the impugned decree for divorce on 5-10-1995.