JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—This application has been filed seeking transfer of Misc. Case No. 55 of 2012 filed for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce given in Suit No. 158 of 2011 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri. 2. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, applicant’s counsel. None appeared for opposite-party No. 2 despite sufficient service. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that applicant’s marriage was solemnized with opposite-party No. 2 on 4.6.2006. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born who is studying in Ajmani International School in Lakhimpur Kheri. Relations between wife and husband became strained leading to various cases. 4. Husband filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 17.8.2010 before Principal Judge, Family Court (R.S. No. 1615 of 2010) giving address of applicant as Smt. Damanjeet Kaur, daughter of Sri Ravindra Singh, wife of Avneet Singh, resident of Mohalla Nai Basti, district Lakhimpur Kheri. This address was not found to be sufficient by Presiding Officer as such he had directed that house number or nearest important place be mentioned. It appears that this order was not complied with and case continued to be posted on different dates. Ultimately, it was dismissed in non-prosecution on 11.1.2012. 5. Husband filed another petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on 21.1.2011. In this case too, the address of the applicant was given as Smt. Damanjeet Kaur, daughter of Sri Ravindra Singh wife of Awaneet Singh, resident of Mohalla Nai Basti, Lakhimpur Kheri but in this case, Presiding Officer did not notice that address was incomplete. Service could not be effected and ultimately service was effected through publication in a Hindi daily ‘Rashtriya Sahara’. The case proceeded ex parte and ultimately petition was allowed on 12.9.2011 and ex parte divorce decree was passed. 6. What is most intriguing is that in petition filed under Section 13 of the Act (R.S. 158 of 2011), there was no mention of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, although said petition had been filed on 17.8.2010 much before filing of the second petition. Affidavit was filed by husband Avaneet Singh as ex parte evidence on 18.7.2011. Affidavit was filed by husband Avaneet Singh as ex parte evidence on 18.7.2011. There was no mention of petition filed under Section 9 of the Act even in affidavit although it was pending in the same Court. 7. When wife came to know about the divorce decree, she filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 28.2.2012. This application is pending since then. It has been specifically stated in the application that she did not receive any summon or notice as incomplete address was shown by the husband. Notice was published in Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow. It is not circulated in Lakhimpur Kheri, as such ex parte decree was obtained by misleading the Court in fraudulent manner with a view to perform second marriage. It is stated that applicant has also filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she had also filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in which husband has filed objection on 9.7.2013 admitting that he had filed petition under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act and obtained decree on 12.9.2011 and having no other option he has married with one Arvindar Kaur on 1.1.2012. 8. It is further submitted that since there is no male member in the family of applicant who may accompany her on every date to Lucknow leaving behind her six year old daughter studying at Lakhimpur Kheri, Misc. case filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC may be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Lakhimpur Kheri from Lucknow which could not be disposed of for last three years. 9. Submission of Sri Sharad Pathak counsel is that it is a case where Court proceedings were manipulated in a manner that married life of applicant stands ruined. Address of applicant was found incomplete as is apparent from the observation made by the Court but in another case on the same address petition proceeded and resulted in ex parte decree. 10. In the petition under Section 13 of the Act and the affidavit filled as evidence in these proceedings there is no mention of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed much prior to the subsequent petition and in the same Court. Two proceedings ran parallel but there was no mention of first petition in the said application. 11. Two proceedings ran parallel but there was no mention of first petition in the said application. 11. From what has been stated above, it is apparent that Family Court was kept in dark about petition under Section 9 of the Act and petition filed for divorce was allowed ex parte which was granted due to incomplete address of the applicant. Had Court known about earlier proceeding and the endorsement about incorrect address situation might have been different. 12. It is more surprising and painful to note that counsel who assisted the petitioner and drafted petition did not inform the Court about the first petition pending before the same Court. Counsels are supposed to assist the Court apart from pleading the case of party. While drafting the petition or preparing the affidavit counsel ought to have mentioned the details of the previous case pending in the same Court which might have escaped the attention of Court because of large number of pending cases. Conduct of party and counsel is far from fair in this case. 13. This appears to be a deliberate concealment aimed at defrauding the Court. 14. It is further submitted that no amount has been paid by husband towards maintenance and husband has admitted his second marriage after ex parte divorce. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 runs a factory of plywood. 15. Applicant is a lady and resides at Lakhimpur Kheri. Her daughter is studying there. Further, there is no other male member in her family except old father. She has been receiving threats from the family of opposite-party as stated in para 17 of the application that opposite-party No. 2 always comes in the Court campus with 7-8 anti-social elements who make threatening gestures towards the petitioner on the dates fixed in the Court, as such it is difficult for her to go and attend the Court proceedings at Lucknow. 16. Since the allegations made on oath have not been controverted by the opposite-party by filing any counter-affidavit, this Court has no option but to proceed treating same to be true. 17. Consequently, this application is allowed. In view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 , Misc. 17. Consequently, this application is allowed. In view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 , Misc. Case No. 55 of 2012 arising out of Regular Suit No. 158 of 2011 filed by opposite-party No. 2 under Section 13 of Indian Marriage Act, pending in the Family Court, Lucknow is transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Lucknow to Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri. 18. In the peculiar circumstance of the case, a sum of Rs. 2,00000/- is imposed as costs upon the opposite-party No. 2 which will be recovered by the Senior Registrar of this Court as arrears of land revenue from opposite-party No. 2 if said amount is not deposited with the Senior Registrar of this Court in a month. 19. Both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri on 10th August, 2015 who will decide the application on merits uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. 20. Let record be sent by Principal Judge, Lucknow to Principal Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri within 15 days. 21. District Judge, Lucknow is directed to hold an inquiry into the whole affair. He would take such preventive steps that the unscrupulous litigant may not mislead the Court in future and such incidents are not repeated. District Judge would take appropriate action against the person found responsible in the inquiry. Result of the inquiry will be communicated to Senior Registrar in a month. 22. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to emphasize that Principal Judge of Family Court should be cautious and careful while granting ex parte decree of divorce as number of cases wherein service has been manipulated in fraudulent manner are coming to the notice of the Court. 23. Principal Judges of the Family Court are directed to ensure that all the matrimonial cases pending there be clubbed and heard by same Presiding Officer unless there is some special reason for separate hearing. In view of the computerization of the cases, there should not be any difficulty in clubbing the cases pending in the same Court. 24. Moreover, Principal Judge should ensure that in the pleadings and affidavit filed in the case as evidence, parties would specifically give the details of the cases pending in the said Court or decided by same or other Court. 24. Moreover, Principal Judge should ensure that in the pleadings and affidavit filed in the case as evidence, parties would specifically give the details of the cases pending in the said Court or decided by same or other Court. Thus, Family Courts would be aware about the cases pending between the parties and any conflicting decision that may result in erosion of the faith in the system would be avoided. 25. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to ensure the compliance. ———————