R.NEEL KUMAR Vs. R.DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No.363 of 2020, dtd. 26/5/2022 whereunder the petition filed by the respondent herein under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w 151 CPC was allowed, the petitioner who is respondent in the above said interlocutory application filed this civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India on the following grounds: The petitioner has claimed that the trial Court ignored the fact that the divorce was already granted to the petitioner on 27/9/2019 because of the failure of the respondent herein appearing before the Court and contesting the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that in view of exparte decree, dtd. 27/9/2019 he has married to one Pragnaya Rani Behera on 29/2/2020 and after lapse of appeal period subsequently, he was blessed with a daughter. The petitioner further claimed that the respondent while filing I.A.No.363 of 2020 has claimed that the petitioner herein convinced her on the ground that all the issues between the couple will be settled amicably and he will withdraw the divorce petition, thereby she did not appear before the Court, but according to the record, she suppressed the fact that she filed complaint before the police in March, 2019 and rampaged the house of brother of petitioner herein and complained before the police that she was necked out from the matrimonial house on 10/3/2019. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that she believed the version of petition about the alleged compromise and did not contest the divorce petition is nothing but false. The respondent got registered a criminal case under Sec. 498-A IPC on 22/7/2019 and the petitioner herein was arrested on 7/8/2019. Subsequently, he was released on bail and charge sheet was filed in the said case on 20/12/2019.

(2.) The petitioner further stated that the respondent having come to know about the exparte order filed another complaint before the Woman Police Station, Charminar which was registered as Crime No.150 of 2019. But, the trial Court without considering all the above aspects allowed the application and set aside the exparte decree, thereby the petitioner sought for setting aside the order.

(3.) As could be seen from the impugned order, the respondent who is none other than the wife of the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.363 of 2020 under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the exparte decree dtd. 27/9/2019.