RANJEET KUMAR Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 3, 1982, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the Act ). Notice to the non-petitioner was issued for 13. 10. 1982. It was received unserved. ON the request of the petitioner, it was ordered that the notice be got published in the Statesman, published from Calcutta. Notice for 16. 12. 82 was published in the Statesman, of 13. 12 82. The non-petitioner did not put her appearance. Accordingly, it was ordered that the case would proceed expert against her. After recording the statement of the petitioner, the petition was allowed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner by his order dated April 2, 1983. ON 22. 8. 83, the non-petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151, C. P. C. for setting aside the expert decree for divorce on the ground that she was not served with the notice and she came to know of the expert decree only on July 24, 1983. The petitioner filed his reply, seriously opposing it. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge allowed the application and set aside the expert decree by his order dated March 31, 1987 which has been challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Ranjeet Kumar that the provisions of order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. are not applicable in the proceedings under the Act, the notice of the non-petitioner was duly published in the Statesman of 13. 12. 82, it was a due service within the meaning of Order 5 Rule 20 C. P. C, the non-petitioner had the knowledge of the expert decree and petition moved under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. was time barred. He also contended that the petitioner has validly contracted second marriage with one Jyotsna Bachhawat on 16. 7. 83 and in her interest also the petition should have been rejected by the learned District Judge.

(3.) THERE is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. are not applicable in the proceedings under the Act. It has been held in Banshidhar Vs. Chandra, (1) that these provisions are applicable in the proceedings under the Act.