Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1073 (RAJ)

Roopam Tyagi v. Abhinav Tyagi

2018-04-25

G.R MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent sued appellant for divorce by presenting the petition on 28.7.2011. He disclosed appellant's address as resident of Village Purkul, Post Office Bhagwantpur, Dehradoon (Uttrakhand). The appellant could not be served at the said address for the reason she claims that her father who was earlier having a house in the village in question had shifted to house from 42/1 Haripur Kanwli, New Patel Nagar Dehradoon (Uttrakhand). The appellant was finally served by publication in a local newspaper in Dehradoon. She was proceeded against ex-parte and decree of divorce was granted on 18.9.2012. 3. Concededly appellant had lodged a complaint before the police authorities in Dehradoon on the Mahila Helpline on 18.11.2011 and the respondent was served. He appeared on 10.4.2012. In said proceedings it was made known to the respondent that the appellant was residing at House No.42/1 Haripur Kanwli, New Patel Nagar Dehradoon (Uttrakhand). He also participated in conciliation proceedings on 19.5.2012. He did not inform in said proceedings that he had sued the appellant for divorce in the State of Rajasthan. He continued to participate in the conciliation proceedings in Dehradoon and for the first time informed on 5.7.2014 that he had obtained the ex-parte decree of divorce. 4. It was at that stage the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure pointing out said facts. 5. Dismissing the application vide impugned order dated 31.05.2016 we find that the learned Judge, Family Court has just not discussed the admitted facts between the couple that before the decree of divorce was granted ex-parte the respondent was served with a notice in the proceedings initiated by the appellant before the police authorities in Dehradoon, on 18.11.2011. Since 10.04.2012 till the year 2014 i.e. on 5th July, the respondent appeared during conciliation in said proceedings. In said proceedings if not earlier at least on 10.04.2012 he was made known that the appellant was no longer residing at the address which he had disclosed in the divorce petition. 6. It is obviously a case where a trick has been played by the respondent with the appellant when whole participating in the conciliation proceedings in Dehradoon he never disclosed that he had sued the appellant for divorce. 6. It is obviously a case where a trick has been played by the respondent with the appellant when whole participating in the conciliation proceedings in Dehradoon he never disclosed that he had sued the appellant for divorce. Even after obtaining the exparte decree on 8.12.2012, he kept quite and it was only on 5.7.2014 that he informed of obtaining an ex-parte decree of divorce. 7. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.05.2016 is set aside. Application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. Exparte decree of divorce granted to the respondent on 18.09.2012 is set aside. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur on 03.07.2018 and in the meanwhile the appellant shall file a reply to the divorce petition filed by the respondent.