Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 732 (MP)

Anita v. Chhail Bhihari

1996-08-20

N.P.SINGH

body1996
JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.7.1995 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Satna in MJC No. 30 of 1994, refusing to set aside ex-parte decree passed in Matrimonial Case No. 129-A of 1994 for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The respondent/husband filed the instant matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights on the plea that the appellant/wife had withdrawn herself from his company from 4.11.1994 without any rhyme or reason and she had also taken away with her two daughters, who were born to him out of the wedlock with the appellant. 3. The appellant/wife appeared in the case and moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. She also made a prayer for direction to the respondent/husband to serve a copy of the matrimonial case to her as the same was not served on her to enable her to file written statement. The case was adjourned to 20.4.1995 for filing written statement by the appellant and the rejoinder by the respondent to the petition filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 20.4.1995 the Trial Court hurriedly proceeded with the suit in absence of the appellant and dacreed the suit ex-parte, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant on 19.6.1995 moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree. A copy of the application was served on the respondent, who was present in the Court. Thereafter the Court called both the parties in Chamber and re-conciled the difference between them and sent the appellant with the respondent to her matrimonial home and the case was adjourned to 19.7.1995. The appellant/wife after spending sometime at her matrimonial home left her matrimonial home and again withdrawn herself from the association of the respondent/husband. 4. On 19.7.1995 the appellant moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine herself and her Counsel in support of her case. The appellant/wife after spending sometime at her matrimonial home left her matrimonial home and again withdrawn herself from the association of the respondent/husband. 4. On 19.7.1995 the appellant moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine herself and her Counsel in support of her case. The Trial Court declined the prayer of the appellant to enter into evidence in the case on the ground that the grounds taken in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were already urged in the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court however, rejected the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that there was no plausible explanation for her absence from the Court on 20.4.1995. As against the order of refusal for restoration of the matrimonial case, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 5. It is evident from the order of the Trial Court that 20.4.1995 was the date fixed for filing the written statement by the appellant and the rejoinder by the respondent to the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The pleadings were not complete in the suit and the suit was not ripe for hearing. The Trial Court, therefore, should have adjourned the case for filing written statement and the rejoinder by the respondent instead of proceeding ex-parte in the suit. 6. It is well settled that the Court cannot proceed ex-parte in a case of sudden absence of the defendant from the Court, unless there is previous order in the case for proceeding ex-parte against the defendant. 7. On perusal of the order dated 20.4.1995, it further transpires that the appellant was not allowed to enter into evidence in the case and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed without any evidence in the case. The impugned order rejecting the application for restoration of matrimonial case as well as the ex-parte decree passed in the case, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly they are set aside and in the result the appeal is allowed and the matrimonial case is restored to its original number.