Dismissed

Rajiv Ranjan Alias Pappu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2019C.R./31/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision was dismissed as the High Court found no illegality in the Family Court's order setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree. The Trial Court accepted that the service report was bogus as the summons were served on the wife's father, who had died, violating procedural rules.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed, upholding the order setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree.

Rajiv Ranjan Alias Pappu Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.R No. 31 of 2015

¶2

¶3

Rajiv Ranjan @ Pappu .… Petitioner

¶4

-VersusPinki Devi ..... Opp. Party

¶5

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶6

------For the Petitioner : Mr. P. C. Sinha, Advocate

¶7

¶8

10/ 01.03.2019. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The opposite party has not appeared.

¶9

This revision is directed against the order dated 9.4.2015, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2010, whereby, the said miscellaneous case filed by the respondent opposite party has been allowed, setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree of divorce, dated 13.4.2010 passed against her, in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 14 of 2009, and the said matrimonial suit was restored to its original file, giving the opportunity to the opposite party to file her written statement.

¶10

The impugned order shows that the Title Matrimonial Suit No. 14 of 2019 was filed by the present petitioner and the same was also decreed in favour of the petitioner ex-parte . The opposite party claimed that she had no knowledge about the Matrimonial Suit and she got the knowledge about the said Judgment and Decree for the first time on 27.7.2010, in connection with a bail matter of her husband, in criminal case filed by her. Thereafter, she filed her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C., for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree, stating that no summon was ever served upon her. The matter was contested by the petitioner in the Court below, and according to the petitioner’s case, summon was served upon her father by the process server on 31.12.2009. However, the opposite party claimed that her father had died on 15.9.2009 itself, and the bogus service report was submitted in the Court.

¶11

The impugned Judgment shows that the Court below entered into the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the service report was bogus, and has accordingly, set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree.

¶12

Even otherwise, upon going through the impugned order, I find that there was nothing to show that any summon was served on the opposite party personally. According to the petitioner's case also, the summon was served upon the father of the opposite party, and not personally upon her.

¶13

I do not see any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree passed against the opposite party.

¶14

There is no merit in this revision and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

¶16

D.S-B.S/-

Rajiv Ranjan Alias Pappu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Ranjan Alias Pappu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Poddar Vs Omiya Ranjan

Ashis Kumar Nag Alias Chhaku Nag Vs Smt Rumaki Dutta

Ebha Kumari Vs Bande Oraon

Krishan Mahto Alias Krishan Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhdeo Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiyalal Vs Sadhan Chandra Paul