Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 417 (PNJ)

Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. S. Anuradha

2014-02-20

SABINA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Petitioner had filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 21.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011. Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 was set aside. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-husband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was aware of the passing of the ex parte decree in November, 2011. The said fact was evident from the cross-examination of AW-2, Narsimha Murthy. Learned counsel has further submitted that the address given by the petitioner in the divorce petition was correct. The said fact was evident from Annexure P-2 wherein the respondent had herself given the same address as given by the petitioner in the divorce petition. 3. In the present case, petitioner and respondent were working in Singapore and met each other over there and fell in love. Petitioner and respondent got married at Vishakhapatnam on 02.06.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed the divorce petition against the respondent on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said petition was allowed in ex parte vide judgment/decree dated 21.10.2011. Thereafter, an application was moved by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree in question on 02.08.2012. 4. Case of the respondent was that no service had been effected on her. Petitioner was aware that respondent was residing at Singapore but had failed to give the said address for service of summons on her. On the other hand, case of the petitioner was that despite knowledge, respondent had failed to appear before the trial court in the divorce proceedings. 5. It has been noticed by the trial court while allowing the application that when summons were issued to the respondent on her address given in the divorce petition, the same were received back with the report that the respondent was residing abroad. Thereafter, publication was got effected in the newspaper and the respondent was proceeded ex parte. 5. It has been noticed by the trial court while allowing the application that when summons were issued to the respondent on her address given in the divorce petition, the same were received back with the report that the respondent was residing abroad. Thereafter, publication was got effected in the newspaper and the respondent was proceeded ex parte. Since in the present case, parties had met each other in Singapore, the plea taken by the respondent that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the respondent was residing in Singapore and he was also aware of her address in Singapore appears to be plausible. Since the petitioner knew that the respondent was residing in Singapore, he should have made an effort to supply the address of the respondent in Singapore. Rather the petitioner got effected service on the respondent through publication. 6. In these circumstances, it is evident that the respondent was not served and did not come to know about the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Immediately on coming to know about the divorce proceedings, she approached the trial court for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree against her. Statement of the respondent has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. A perusal of the same reveals that the respondent has categorically stated that she came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree against her on 04.07.2012 and had moved the application for setting aside the ex parte decree without any delay. Said plea of the respondent could not be shattered during her cross-examination. In these circumstances, the fact that the witness examined by the respondent AW-2 had stated that in November, 2011, respondent had come to know about the divorce granted in favour of Dinesh Kumar fails to advance the case of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial court had rightly allowed the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011, as the respondent had not been duly served in the said proceedings. 7. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 8. Dismissed.