KANTA SHARMA Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE appellant, wife of the respondent, being aggrieved against the ex parte divorce decree dated 25.5.2005, has preferred this appeal to challenge said ex parte decree.

(3.) IT will be worthwhile to mention here that on 17.5.2005, the counsel who appeared for the appellant in the trial court, informed that he submitted Vakalatnama for appellant and said Vakalatnama was given to him by the counsel for the respondent which he has filed believing the counsel for the respondent. It is stated that the appellant did not contact him at any time nor he is knowing the appellant. He sent the notices referred above to the appellant but he could not contact, therefore, he is pleading no instructions. The trial court, after considering the above facts, observed that since information was sent to the appellant by her counsel by registered post and by letter Under Certificate of Posting and the appellant did not contact her advocate, therefore, there is no reason to give further notice by the court to the appellant. Then ultimately, the trial court decreed divorce petition filed by the respondent. Hence this appeal has been preferred but with delay of 584 days.