JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. This First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ husband- Mandeepsingh Indrajitsingh Makhija, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.467 of 2017. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Family Suit No.467 of 2017 filed by the wife- Manpreetkaur, for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (henceforth, “the Act”), was allowed. 2. The respondent-wife had approached the Family Court for divorce. It was her case that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.11.2013. The couple started to live together at Delhi. Post shifting to Ahmedabad, it appears that the differences arose between them, as a result of which, particularly, in the year-2015, when the appellant went to the US, things became difficult for her, and therefore, she was constrained to move the Family Court at Ahmedabad for filing a petition for divorce. 3. Mr. Manmeetsingh P. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit as under: 3.1 That for the first time, the seeds of discontent were sown when an FIR was filed against the appellant, which was registered on 01.08.2016. Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would submit that the appellant was constrained to address a letter on 03.02.2016 to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. Drawing our attention to the letter at page no.331 of the paper book, Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would read out the contents of the letter and indicate as to why after the family shifted to the Ahmedabad and he joined the business as suggested by in-laws, the relations which were otherwise good, began to sour. 3.2 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would further contend that the appellant was never at fault and was keen to save his matrimonial life. In fact, he was scared of his in-laws and in fact, in order to resolve the dispute, he had approached his brother-in-law. He read out an e-mail, which is on record. 3.3 With regard to the controversy of the service of notice of the proceedings in the Family Court, he submitted that the respondentwife herself had given two addresses of which, the address of Gurgaon was given as address for notice of service of summons. Pursuant to an application for publication of notice, the notice was published in the Indian Express Edition at New Delhi. Pursuant to an application for publication of notice, the notice was published in the Indian Express Edition at New Delhi. Gurgaon being in Haryana, it was no sufficient compliance of service of notice as Gurgaon being border State, it was a deliberate exercise to get the notice published in a news paper at Delhi. The appellant was never aware of the proceedings as the summons were never served. He would submit that this was a deliberate exercise and fraud played on the appellant. 3.4 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that an application was given at Exh.15 by the wife that the stage for the husband be closed and appropriate order be passed. This application was filed on 13.07.2017. Issues were framed by the Trial Court at Exh.16 on 18.08.2017. The issue pertains as to whether the wife was able to prove that after solemnization of marriage, the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty. A closing pursis was filed, thereafter. 3.5 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to Exh.31, to indicate that written arguments were sought to be filed by the wife. Since, the advocate who was dealing with the other cases mainly a criminal case, in which the appellant was facing charges under Section 498 (A), and as the appellant’s advocate was in the court on the day, Exh.32 application was filed on 23.01.2018 through his power of attorney holder Shri. Chirag Kumar for reopening all stages. 3.6 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would further submit that pursuant to the request dated 23.01.2018, right to open all stages never materialized. By an order dated 04.04.2018, the Family Court without any reason rejected these applications. Inviting our attention to Exh.36, Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the power of attorney holder also filed an affidavit that he was the power of attorney holder. The power of attorney was produced. 3.7 Inviting our attention to the application made at Exh.37 for permitting the appellant to file a written statement, he would submit that no orders were passed. At Exh.42, an application was made for permission to cross-examine the respondent. All these applications at Exhs.42, 46, 57, 61, 68, 69 and 71 were heard together. The application for cross-examination was allowed on a condition that the appellant pays Rs.1 Lakh towards cost. At Exh.42, an application was made for permission to cross-examine the respondent. All these applications at Exhs.42, 46, 57, 61, 68, 69 and 71 were heard together. The application for cross-examination was allowed on a condition that the appellant pays Rs.1 Lakh towards cost. Exh.46 and Exh.61 applications filed by the wife that the husband had not declared the correct address and the suit be heard ex parte, were rejected. The application for adjournment by the appellant at Exh.68 was allowed on payment of Rs.10,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by the wife. This order was passed on 06.02.2020. 3.8 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that in fact, the address at Canada of the appellant was the correct address, for which, copy of the passport, the residential lease agreement were on record. At Exh.45, request was made for adjournment. Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would then invite our attention to Exh.50 reply, where even the wife had admitted that the appellant was staying at Ontario. He would further submit that on 07.01.2019, the appellant again applied for an adjournment. 3.9 Inviting our attention to Exh.61, Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would submit that all throughout, the appellant was ready and willing to appear at the hearing. The order dated 06.02.2020 was challenged before this Court and the Court set aside the same and kept the matter for further hearing on 25.11.2021. Thereafter, the hearing was postponed from 16.12.2019 for a short period to 24.12.2019. On 24.12.2019, time was sought and also an application was made at Exh.72 asking for reasonable time. It was a tough situation for the appellant since the Trial Court gave short dates without appreciating the fact that the appellant was at Canada, the power of attorney was at Delhi and the proceedings were in Ahmedabad, and therefore, it was difficult to keep pace with the adjourned date. 3.10 Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel, would submit that an application was made on 06.12.2022 for filing a written statement at Exh.115. The Court by its order dated 06.12.2022 rejected the application. A further application for mediation was also filed, which was also rejected. The appellant, therefore, asked for time for about 15 to 20 days so that a written statement can be prepared, which application was considered; however, the Trial Court posted the matter for hearing on 12.04.2023, granting only a short time. A further application for mediation was also filed, which was also rejected. The appellant, therefore, asked for time for about 15 to 20 days so that a written statement can be prepared, which application was considered; however, the Trial Court posted the matter for hearing on 12.04.2023, granting only a short time. Thereafter, a written statement was filed and thereafter, the Court kept the matter for judgment. In other words, it was learned counsel Mr. Chhabra’s submission that after requesting the Court to reopen all stages in the year-2018 and in the year-2020, the Family Court conditionally re-opened all stages by imposing cost which was set aside by this Court, and thereafter, the appellant was ready and willing to co-operate and in fact, had cross-examined the respondent. Short dates, thereafter, were given, as a result of which, the appellant could not examine and cross-examine himself and written arguments could only be filed and once the stage having been closed and the matter kept for the judgment, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity of hearing before the Family Court, and therefore, it would be reasonable for the appellant to request that the order of the Family Court be set aside and the proceedings be remanded for a fresh hearing. 4. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, would make the following submissions: 4.1 He would submit that it is incorrect for the appellant to submit that the publication in the newspaper was an insufficient notice. He would submit that the Indian Express newspaper, where the public notice was published, was of the capital NCR region of which, Gurgaon was a part, and therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was never aware of service of summons, is misconceived. 4.2 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that after the stage of reply for the appellant was closed and issues were framed, suddenly on 23.01.2018, by way of applications Exhs.32,33 and 34, the advocate i.e. the present appellant’s counsel appearing here made an application to re-open all stages. There is no explanation as to how on 23.01.2018, these applications were made together with a copy of the power of attorney holder who was a resident of Uttar Pradesh? He would submit that respondent-wife filed an application for the husband to produce the documents including original power of attorney etc. There is no explanation as to how on 23.01.2018, these applications were made together with a copy of the power of attorney holder who was a resident of Uttar Pradesh? He would submit that respondent-wife filed an application for the husband to produce the documents including original power of attorney etc. That application was allowed where the husband only produced the two pages of his passport. On an application Exh.42 filed by the husband-appellant for re-opening of the cross-examination, the order dated 06.02.2020 was passed. In the meantime, an adjournment was sought by the appellant on 04.05.2018 and on 22.06.2018 for the reasons of having been out of town. After the order was passed by the trial court on the applications Exh.42 etc., these were subject matter of a challenge before the High Court. The husband kept on filing applications one after the other. The Trial Court on 26.02.2020, rejected the application of the husband to grant reasonable time and posted the matter for judgment on 10.03.2020. The advocate again made an application on 08.03.2020. The wife objected to these applications and hence, the application of the husband was rejected on 19.10.2022. Present application for adjournment was filed by the wife on 29.12.2021. The Court after ten months, passed an order on 19.10.2022, allowing the wife’s application for video conferencing. The husband further sought time on 22.06.2022 and 22.07.2022, wherefrom it is evident that the contention of the appellant that short time was granted so as to deprive the appellant of reasonable opportunity of being heard is misconceived. 4.3 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that as early as on 06.03.2023, the appellant asked for an adjournment of 40 to 45 days and the Court kept the matter on 27.03.2023. On 06.04.2023, an adjournment application was filed. On 08.04.2023, the appellant-husband again filed an application for adjournment, which was rejected on the ground of delay. After a brief period, on 12.04.2023, the husband’s application for hearing oral arguments was not considered and when written arguments was filed on 17.04.2023, the Court reserved the matter and pronounced the judgment. 4.4 As far as the bona fides of the Canada address is concerned, Mr. After a brief period, on 12.04.2023, the husband’s application for hearing oral arguments was not considered and when written arguments was filed on 17.04.2023, the Court reserved the matter and pronounced the judgment. 4.4 As far as the bona fides of the Canada address is concerned, Mr. Desai, learned counsel, would take us through his reply and sur - rejoinder to the civil application for stay and submit that the investigation was carried out through private agencies, which indicate that his address which was shown to be of Ontario, had a lot of contradictions. It was evident that some affidavit was affirmed in the State of Indiana. One of the affidavits was affirmed at Paris and the other in the state of Toronto and even the address at Gurgaon, which was shown to be the precedence in India was very doubtful inasmuch as in the proceedings for bail, it had come on record that his parents had disowned him as son. A red corner notice was issued for the appellant and these grounds were sufficient enough for this Court not to entertain the appeal. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, we are pained to note that here is a case where the stand that the respondent-wife had to take in seeking divorce from the appellant husband got further foiled by the stand of the appellant to prolong the agony of the wife by trying to defeat the respondent-wife through the fatigue of litigation. 6. We had called for the record and proceedings and were taken through each of the exhibits by the learned counsels for the respective parties. The wife ventured to take up the challenge to seek separation on the ground of cruelty by filing the Family Suit on 14.03.2017. She filed a pursis that the notice of the proceedings be served on the Gurgaon address, the R.P.A.D. notice could not be served. She therefore, applied for substituted service. After publication of the notice in the Indian Express, which newspaper cutting was produced with an affidavit, when the appellant did not appear before the Family Court, she gave an application Exh.15 on 18.08.2017 that the stage of reply of the appellant be closed. The trial court framed issues on 18.08.2017. On 21.09.2017, the wife filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The trial court framed issues on 18.08.2017. On 21.09.2017, the wife filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. She also filed an application Exh.20 on 26.10.2017 to close the right of cross-examination of the wife by the husband. 7. It is strange that the applications Exhs.32 to 35 are filed by counsel for the appellant, who appeared before the Family Court saying that since he had appeared for the husband in proceedings under Section 498(A) in the criminal court while being in the court and when the case was called out, he suddenly realized that the appellant husband was the very client that he had defended in criminal proceedings. On the very date of the application, he also produced a power of attorney of the appellant who had then gone to Canada. The power of attorney holder was a resident of U.P. The application for reopening all stages was rejected on 04.04.2018. 8. The wife had to fight an invisible ghost inasmuch as, she had to file applications to seek the address and the correct residential status of the husband. This was particularly evident from reading application Exh.37, which the trial court allowed on 10.04.2018, directing the appellant to file a copy of the passport and supporting documents. The husband filed the first two pages of the passport only. On 10.04.2018, the husband again filed an application for re-opening of his right to cross-examine the wife. The applications were filed at Exhs.46 and 61 by the wife for action for concealing the correct address and for obtaining a decree of divorce under Order IX Rule 6. All these applications filed by the wife and the husband were either rejected or conditionally allowed. Importantly, the husband’s application for re-opening cross-examination was allowed on the condition that he deposits Rs.1 Lakh as costs. This order was passed on 06.02.2020. In the meantime, on two occasions i.e. on 07.01.2019 and on 09.04.2019, the advocate for the appellant has filed an adjournment application on the ground that his advocate was in Mumbai or was not available in Ahmedabad. The proceedings were adjourned to October-2019. On 13.12.2019, the husband again filed an application at Exh.68 seeking an adjournment on the ground that the advocate had gone to Indore. On 24.12.2019, again an application for adjournment at Exh.71 was filed by the husband. 9. The proceedings were adjourned to October-2019. On 13.12.2019, the husband again filed an application at Exh.68 seeking an adjournment on the ground that the advocate had gone to Indore. On 24.12.2019, again an application for adjournment at Exh.71 was filed by the husband. 9. Pending these adjournments that the appellant-husband sought, he also challenged the orders passed below applications Exh.42 etc. which gave him right to cross-examine the wife after paying costs before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the matters allowing the application of the husband to cross-examine and the direction to pay costs was set aside. On 29.09.2021, he filed an application that the matter be taken on board. On 25.11.2021, the trial court was to take the matters for hearing as ordered by the High Court for the husband’s presence. On the wife being un-well, the proceedings were adjourned. On 22.06.2022, again the appellanthusband filed an adjournment application and 22.07.2022 was another date where the appellant had filed an application for the adjournment. When this application was filed, the wife strongly objected to the adjournment and on 03.08.2022, written arguments were filed by the appellant. The Trial Court on 06.12.2022, when the appellant asked for time to file written statement, rejected the same. That order was again taken to the High Court by the husband, which the High Court did not entertain and was withdrawn on 06.04.2023. In the interregnum, on 06.12.2022, 09.12.2022 and 17.12.2022, the wife was cross-examined by the husband and 8th application for adjournment was filed on 03.01.2023 on the ground that the appellant was sick. The Trial Court on 04.01.2023, kept the matter for hearing on 10.01.2023 on the ground that it was a very old matter. 10. On 06.03.2023, the appellant’s advocate asked for time for 40 to 45 days in order to see that he would produce the affidavit of the appellant who was staying abroad. On 27.03.2023, on an application filed by the husband for time, the Family Court after observing that sufficient time had been granted, adjourned the matter to 06.04.2023. Since the order of the High Court was available on the very date i.e. 06.04.2023, the Family Court kept the hearing on 08.04.2023. Undeterred by this, on 08.04.2023, the appellant-husband again asked for time, which request was rejected and the matter was posted on 12.04.2023. Since the order of the High Court was available on the very date i.e. 06.04.2023, the Family Court kept the hearing on 08.04.2023. Undeterred by this, on 08.04.2023, the appellant-husband again asked for time, which request was rejected and the matter was posted on 12.04.2023. On 12.04.2023, the husband filed an application for transfer of the case, which was rejected. When the husband’s advocate requested for some time to make his oral submissions after the wife had completed, the matter was kept on 17.04.2023, on which date written arguments were filed and the judgment of the Family Court was delivered on 27.04.2023. 11. These littering of dates over the record indicates a systematic abuse of the litigative process by a husband while being beyond the borders of this country. Having taken up a dishonest stand of not having been served through public summons in the year-2017 and filed an application for reopening of all stages in the year-2018 for a period of time till the year-2020, true it may be that the wife also in her pursuit to get deliverance from her husband, made applications, who continued to apply for adjournments leading the Court to the brink of exasperation when it had to pass an order on 06.02.2020 imposing the cost of Rs.1 Lakh. Obviously staying abroad and being illusive to the pained wife did not deter the appellant from approaching this Court, challenging these orders. The High Court in the year-2021 fixed 25.11.2021 as the date for the hearing before the Family Court. The rojkam indicates that when the stages were fixed in the year 2019 and 2021, on one or the other grounds at least 10 applications for adjournment were made at the hands of the appellant-husband either on the ground of his advocate not being available or he wanting time to file written statement or due to vacations in the High Court or the easter holidays, and therefore, it was not possible for the appellant to appear. The appellant-husband stone walled the proceedings by making applications for re-opening, having them rejected, challenging them in the higher forum when the stage was re-opened. Over the period from 25.11.2021 right till 08.04.2023 over ten applications for adjournment were made. 12. The rojkam indicates the dishonest stand of the appellant that he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The appellant-husband stone walled the proceedings by making applications for re-opening, having them rejected, challenging them in the higher forum when the stage was re-opened. Over the period from 25.11.2021 right till 08.04.2023 over ten applications for adjournment were made. 12. The rojkam indicates the dishonest stand of the appellant that he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. At every stage when the trial court would fix a date, an application promptly would come for adjournment and on more than three occasions, the trial court adjourned the proceedings for over two months. Even at the stage when the application for filing a written statement was rejected, the appellant approached the High Court again to face rejection. These are classic tactics of a smart litigant who would want to frustrate such a sensitive proceedings as the one involving marriage. 13. Sitting at Canada, engaging a lawyer at Ahmedabad through the machinations of applications after applications for adjournment for reopening of stages of examination, the appellant indulged in shadow boxing. A lot can be said from the record which have been placed before us as to whether the appellant really would reside at the address given in the cause title at Canada. Expert opinions are on record to indicate that lease agreement of the Ontario property is forged. The place of residence in fact is a Gurudwara and not a house property. Affidavits are on record, which have been made at USA, Paris, State of Indiana, Toronto etc. The appellant is already facing criminal cases under Section 498(A) for opening bank accounts under the forged signature of his wife. A Red Corner notice has been issued under the directions of proceedings on the criminal side pending in the High Court. 14. These in addition to the record and the rojkam of the list of the dates and record, which we have noted hereinabove, indicate that the appellant has not even argued through his counsel on the merits of the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent on the ground of cruelty. The only submission that was made, was that the appellant be given a fair opportunity of hearing by remanding the proceedings before the Family Court. 15. The events that have unfolded, which we have captured hereinabove, indicate that the appeal of the appellant does not deserve any consideration, and therefore, we have no reason to entertain the appeal. The only submission that was made, was that the appellant be given a fair opportunity of hearing by remanding the proceedings before the Family Court. 15. The events that have unfolded, which we have captured hereinabove, indicate that the appeal of the appellant does not deserve any consideration, and therefore, we have no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of, accordingly. 16. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. Interim arrangement, recorded earlier, stands vacated forthwith. FURTHER ORDER: After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Manmeetsingh P. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, has prayed to extend the interim arrangement. Request is rejected.