Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 131 (RAJ)

Manbina Kaur v. Karminder Singh

2016-01-20

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. In the present matrimonial dispute, the appellant/wife has filed the misc. appeal in this Court on 25.08.2015 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Family Court, Banswara, in Civil Misc. Case No. Nil/2015, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant/wife under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree granted in favour of respondent/husband by the learned Family Court, Banswara on 18.10.2013 under Section 25 read with 8 and 10 of the Guardian & Wards Act, whereby the custody of two minor children of the couple has been directed to handed over to the respondent/husband. 2. In the present appeal, this Court passed a detailed order after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties on 27.11.2015 which is quoted herein below for ready reference :- "The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Family Court, Banswara, by which the application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for reopening of an ex-parte Divorce Decree filed by the Advocate instructed to appear on behalf of the appellant-wife Smt. Manbina Kaur was rejected the learned court below, as the same was not supported by proper application of the appellant-wife herself, therefore, the Advocate was refused permission of the learned court below to appear on her behalf. Learned counsels at the Bar submit that there are several litigations between the parties on account of the aforesaid matrimonial dispute, including the case under Section 498-A IPC and case relating to custody of two male issues, namely, Haraksh Singh aged 11 years and Jasnoor Singh aged 10 years. Both the learned counsels, therefore, suggested that the entire dispute can be sorted out, if the parties are referred to Mediation Centre attached with this Court, where the possibilities of mutual settlement can be explored. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-wife however, submitted that the efforts of mutual settlement were made between the parties at Chandigarh also, which did not fructify. However that should not prevent the parties to again try to sort out their dispute by mutual settlement at the Mediation Centre attached with this Court. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-wife however, submitted that the efforts of mutual settlement were made between the parties at Chandigarh also, which did not fructify. However that should not prevent the parties to again try to sort out their dispute by mutual settlement at the Mediation Centre attached with this Court. Therefore, at the joint request of the learned counsels for the parties, the parties are summoned to appear before the learned trained Mediator, Mediation Centre attached with this Court on 10.12.2015. A period of four weeks is allowed to the learned trained Mediator and the parties to explore the possibility of mutual settlement of the dispute between them. The matter may thereafter be listed along with the report of the learned trained Mediator before the Court on 12.01.2016. The learned counsels for the parties shall ensure the presence of their respective parties before the learned trained Mediation, Mediation Centre attached with this Court and also use their good offices for such settlement and cooperate in the mediation proceedings. Put up on 12.01.2016." 3. In response to the same, the appellant/wife has sent another application under Section 151 CPC, which has been in warded in the office this Court on 11.12.2012, whereby the appellant/wife has requested for transfer of proceedings for mediation to Mediation Centre at Chandigarh. The relevant portion of the said application is also quoted herein below for ready reference :- "4. That the applicant came to know about the ex-parte decree dated 18.10.2013 from the Executing Court Chandigarh where it was transferred for execution. Immediately the applicant came to Banswara and approached the Family Court, but incidentally the court was on leave, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree could not be entertained despite the fact that the applicant approached the Courts through counsel. The applicant was chased by the Gunda elements of respondent/husband upto Ratlam where on the way, the applicant had to leave the taxi and to take another route to save herself along with his brother. The respondent/husband tried to kidnap the children from their house at Chandigarh. The husband sent gunda elements may times to commit robbery in the house of the applicant. The FIR was lodged by the applicant at Chandigarh. 5. The respondent/husband tried to kidnap the children from their house at Chandigarh. The husband sent gunda elements may times to commit robbery in the house of the applicant. The FIR was lodged by the applicant at Chandigarh. 5. That the applicant is residing along with two minor children at Chandigarh and the respondent/husband has been cruel to the wife and children all the time and never extended any help till date. The mediation was ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana twice and the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh twice, but the respondent/husband was always behaved like a rascal without any fruitful result rather the differences has been widened and the husband has wrongly mentioned before the Hon'ble Court for mediation in the above noted case. The applicant/petitioner is scared from her husband and apprehends that he will definitely eliminate the applicant or the children because he has already made attempts by spending money through the gunda elements. 6. That the applicant petitioner appreciated the observation of the Hon'ble Court for sending the case for mediation on the asking of the counsel for the respondent/husband, but the husband has never made any efforts or circumstances for mediation or to come closure to the applicant/wife or to the minor children, but he always attempted to commit the offences like robbery, kidnapping, threatening and harassment to the wife and children. It will be applicable if the Hon'ble Court may kindly send the case for mediation to the Mediation and Re-conciliation centre at Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh through Registrar Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh with the prior information to both the parties. 7. That the applicant has not filed any such or similar application in this Hon'ble Court or any other court of competent Jurisdiction. 8. That the applicant has not been left with any other alternative, relief except to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of present application. 9. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly grant the indulgence and transfer the mediation proceedings in the above noted case to the Mediation and Re-Conciliation centre at Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh through Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court with the prior information to both the parties through their counsel. It is further prayed that in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly decide the above case on merit. It is further prayed that in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly decide the above case on merit. Sd/- Shushant Kaur Applicant Petitioner Jodhpur Dated 27.11.2015" 4. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/wife also brought to the notice of this Court that for seeking transfer of Proceedings of Case No. 07/2013 from Banswara to Chandigarh where she is presently residing along with children at her brother's house, she even approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing transfer petition being Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1480/2014 - Manbeena Kaur v. Karaminder Singh in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 20.02.2015 with liberty to the appellant to renew her prayer in the event civil suit is revived. The order dated 20.02.2015 reads ad infra : "We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-wife for transfer of Civil Suit No. 67 of 2013 titled as Karaminder Singh v. Manbeena Kaur pending before the District Judge, Family Court, Banswara, Rajasthan to the competent Court of Chandigarh, U.T. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-husband submitted that Civil Suit No. 67 of 2013 filed by the husband has already been allowed by the Court of Family Judge, Banswara, Rajasthan in terms of the order dated 18.10.2013. In the aforesaid circumstances, this transfer petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew her prayer in the event civil suit is revived." 5. The impugned order before this Court in the present appeal is only rejection of her application for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that appellant/wife Manbina Kaur, had not authorised Sh. Ajay Singh Solanki, to represent her in the said proceedings. However, learned counsel for the appellant/wife has produced before this Court a certified copy of the application sent by the appellant/wife through post, which was in warded by the office of District Judge, Banswara vide Inward No. 1329 on 14.07.2015 in which she requested the court below to allow the Advocate to appear on her behalf. However, learned counsel for the appellant/wife has produced before this Court a certified copy of the application sent by the appellant/wife through post, which was in warded by the office of District Judge, Banswara vide Inward No. 1329 on 14.07.2015 in which she requested the court below to allow the Advocate to appear on her behalf. The certified copy of the said application is taken on record and the relevant portion of the same is also reproduced herein below:- ^^1- nj[kkLr drkZ izkFkhZ dh iRuh gS vkSj vius nksuksa cPpksa ds lkFk 01-09-2012 ls p.Mhx<+ esa vius HkkbZ ds lkFk vius edku esa jg jgh gSA izkFkhZ us nj[kkLr drkZ ds bruk nq[kh o ekjihV dh fd vc og p.Mhx<+ ls ckalokM+k rd lQj ugha dj ldrh vkSj mldk ckalokM+k dksVZ esa vkdj viuk i{k is'k djuk laEHko ugha gSA izfroknh dks dkuwu dk Kku ugha gSA 2- ;g gS fd nj[kkLr drkZ izfroknh vius cPpksa ds f[kykQ eqdnek ua0 625 dated 26.10.2013 u/s 406, 498A IPC P.S. 34 CHD ntZ djok;k Fkk vkSj oknh us ;g lc tkurs gq, Hkh fd nj[kkLr drkZ p.Mhx<+ esa jg jgh gS ckalokM+k Qsfeyh dksVZ esa dLVMh dsl Mky dj ,d rjQk QSlyk djok fy;kA 3- ;g fd izfroknh dks ckalokM+k dksVZ esa vkdj dsl dh iSjoh djuk laEHko ugha gSA blfy, nj[kkLr drkZ izfroknh dks vf/koDrk ds }kjk is'k djus dk ekSdk fn;k tk,A c;ku drkZ dh nj[kkLr 17-07-2015 ds fy, yfEcr gSA rLnhd rlnhd fd;k tkrk gS fd esjk mij fyf[kr c;ku iSjk 1&3 rd fcYdqy lgh o nq:Lr gSA blesa dqN Hkh Nqik dj ugha j[kk x;kA ,l-Mh-@& ckalokM+k c;kudrkZ** 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife further submitted that although the said application was in warded in the office of District Judge, Banswara vide Inward No. 1329 dated 14.07.2015 however, the same escaped the notice of the learned Family Court Banswara, on 22.07.2015 when the impugned order was passed and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, deserves to be decided by the court below. To this aspect of the matter, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent, does not have any serious objection. 7. Accordingly, the present misc. To this aspect of the matter, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent, does not have any serious objection. 7. Accordingly, the present misc. appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 the learned Family Court, Banswara, is directed to re-decide the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.10.2013 on merits in accordance with law after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/wife. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the court below forthwith.