KUNTESH SHARMA Vs. MANISHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order dtd. 1/3/2017 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court') whereby the application preferred by appellanthusband under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC praying to set aside ex parte decree dtd. 6/5/2016 was rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that appellant got married to the respondent-wife on 18/11/2000. The couple has one daughter and one son from the said marriage. The relationship between the parties did not remain cordial. Thus, a petition for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant on the ground of cruelty against respondent-wife before Family Court No.1, Bikaner. The Family Court directed appellant to produce witnesses in support of his petition on 22/4/2014. However, the appellant failed to produce witness for examination on the aforesaid date. The Family Court extended 16 opportunities to the appellant to produce witnesses. In fact, appellant never appeared before Family Court after 13/5/2011. The Family Court on 3/4/2016 allowed last opportunity in favour of the appellant in the interest of justice to lead evidence while imposing a cost of Rs.5,000.00. The appellant yet failed to avail the opportunity to produce witnesses. The Family Court in the aforesaid circumstances vide order dtd. 26/4/2016, closed the right of the appellant to produce witnesses. The next date i.e. 6/5/2016 was fixed by the Family Court for arguments. However, on the aforesaid date neither appellant nor any of his representatives appeared before the Family Court.

(3.) The Family Court keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the appellant, vide ex parte decree dtd. 6/5/2016, dismissed the divorce petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was thereupon filed to set aside the ex parte decree. The Family Court by a detailed reasoned order dtd. 1/3/2017 rejected the aforesaid application. A challenge has been laid to orders dtd. 26/4/2016, 6/5/2016 and 1/3/2017 in the instant civil misc. appeal.