SULEKHA Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH NARUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the ex parte divorce decree passed against the appellant by the Family Court, Jodhpur. Amongst other grounds, the appellant has stated that she was never served with the notice of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Jodhpur.

(2.) A perusal of the record goes to show that the appellant's contention is justified. Application under Section 13 was presented on 22.1.2002 and notices were directed to be issued for 18.3.2002. On 18.3.2002 the Presiding Officer was not present and case was adjourned to 7.5.2002. On 3.4.2002, on an application of the applicant-husband alleging that the non-applicant wife was avoiding service, the case was taken up by preponing the date and order was made for issuing fresh summons by the registered post and also for taking 'dasti' notices to be served on the respondent -present appellant. The Court directed on request of the applicant-husband to issue summons by 'dasti' through Family Court, Jaipur and the next date was fixed on 7.5.2002. The notices were also directed to be issued by registered post.

(3.) Apparently, preponing the date and making an order on such application was wholly unjustified, 18.3.2002 was the first date of hearing after application under Section 13 was moved. No report was made by the officer that notices had returned unserved or otherwise. Presiding Officer was on leave. In these, circumstances , the allegation by husband that wife is avoiding service was highly interested statement by a person who was in a hurry to dissolve marriage and his intent to keep the other side out of proceedings was obvious. On 7.5.2002, the learned Judge, Family Court recorded without reference to as to what has happened to notices sent by Court and given 'dasti' to applicant-husband, that a telegram has been received from the respondent-present appellant, therefore, she was assumed to be present and next date was fixed on 28.6.2002. The non-applicant was not present on any of the successive dates and on 3.12.2002 an order was made for proceeding ex parte.