Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 573 (UTT)

Renu Rawat v. Manwar Singh Rawat

2020-12-21

N.S.DHANIK, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This case has been heard through video conferencing. 2. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application (CLMA No.422 of 2020), the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife against the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, by which the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 15.03.2016 has been dismissed. 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/husband filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. Since the appellant/wife did not appear before the Family Court, the suit was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife/appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for recalling the ex-parte order, however, the application moved by the appellant/wife has been dismissed by the Family Court vide order dated 23.09.2019 on ground of delay. 5. The case of the appellant/wife before this Court is that she lives in a remote hill area, whereas the petition for divorce was filed in the court of Dehradun and she did not receive the notice. When the appellant/wife came to know that her husband is going to re-marry, she filed a suit for injunction where written statement was filed by her husband stating that he has already obtained the decree of divorce and then she came to know about the decree against her only on 14.12.2017. Thereafter the appellant moved an application for recall of the order dated 15.03.2016, which was dismissed by the Family Court on ground that it was filed after three months of the knowledge and the delay has not been explained. 6. Initially the husband/respondent was being represented by Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate who had also filed a caveat. Mr. Nalin Saun, says that client is not in touch with him and in spite of his best efforts, he is not receiving his call. 7. Considering the nature of the matter and in the interest of justice, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2019 is set aside. The Family Court is directed to hear the appellant on the recall application on merits, and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.