In a civil revision under Article 226, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the trial court did not commit any illegality in condoning delay to set aside an ex parte divorce decree. The revision was dismissed as it had no merit.
Civil Revision No.6139 of 2014 is dismissed; the impugned order of the trial court is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No.6139 of 2014
.....
Date of decision:11.9.2014
Rakesh Rai
.....Petitioner v. Anju Rai
.....Respondent ....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Inderjit Singh, J.
Rakesh Rai-petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against Anju Rai-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.4.2014 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana to the extent that the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.2.2012 has been allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that Rakesh Rai-present petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against his wife Anju Rai, where she
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
C.R. No.6139 of 2014
[2]
was proceeded ex parte and the judgment and decree has been passed ex parte by accepting the petition under Section 13 of the Act and declaring the marriage between the parties dissolved. The respondent-applicant Anju Rai filed an application alleging that on 21.3.2013, she came to know about the ex parte decree of divorce passed against her. The applicant-respondent filed the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.2.2012 passed in favour of her husband.
Upon notice in the application, the respondent-husband (petitioner herein) has appeared through his counsel and filed a detailed reply. In his reply, he has pleaded that the factum of ex parte decree of divorce was in the knowledge of the applicant-wife as it is evident from one application filed by Rakesh Rai-husband in order to seek pre-arrest bail, in which he has specifically averred that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. He further pleaded that in the bail proceedings, the applicant-wife has appeared through her counsel on 12.2.2012 and now in order to make a ground, she has been alleging a wrong fact that she came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree on 21.3.2013, when she came to attend the matter before the High Court. With these submissions, he prayed that the applicant-wife was having knowledge regarding the passing of ex parte decree, but despite that she did not file any application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree.
The learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana while
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
C.R. No.6139 of 2014
[3]
discussing the facts of the case and the law point allowed this application vide order dated 26.4.2014 and the delay has been condoned.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has correctly appreciated the law. There is nothing on the record to show that, in any way, the applicant-wife is to be benefitted by filing this application at a belated stage. There is nothing on the record, at this stage, to show any mala fide on the part of the applicant-respondent. The Court has also discussed the law that the expression `sufficient cause', a pragmatic justice-oriented approach should be applied.
As regards the fact that a plea was taken in the anticipatory bail application filed by the husband before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the wife was represented through counsel itself will not prove that those averments made in the bail application were in the knowledge of the applicant-wife and her counsel informed her about the same. The learned Court also discussed that the applicant-wife is, in no way, to gain by delaying the preferring of the application. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. In fact, she runs a serious risk. The Court also took notice that out of the wedlock of the parties one female child was born and she is being looked after by the applicant-wife and she is resident of Delhi, whereas the husband had filed a petition for divorce at Ludhiana.
From the perusal of the impugned order, I find that no
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
C.R. No.6139 of 2014
[4]
illegality has been committed by the Court below. The order is as per law
and does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld.
Therefore, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the
same is dismissed.
September 11, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge
hsp
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court below committed any illegality in condoning the delay in setting aside an ex parte divorce decree.
Whether the petitioner has any ground to succeed in the civil revision petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Rai
Anju Rai
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
