The husband appealed against the setting aside of an ex parte divorce decree. The Court found no justification for setting aside the lower court's order which relied on the wife's assurance of withdrawal and rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed; the order setting aside the ex parte decree 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******
124
CR-2922-2024 Date of Decision.:18.09.2024
Jagpal Singh Pe,,oner
Vs.
Simranjeet Kaur Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate for the pe��oner.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Pe��on under Sec�on 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband was decreed ex parte against the wife Simranjeet Kaur. On coming to know of the ex parte decree of divorce against her, wife filed an applica�on under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In that applica�on, the husband was proceeded ex parte as he failed to appear despite service in accordance with law and so, by way of impugned order dated 18.09.2023, the applica�on was allowed and the ex parte decree of divorce dated 07.12.2021 was set aside. Husband has now approached this Court by assailing the order dated 18.09.2023, whereby ex parte decree of divorce has been set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the pe��oner at length and have
also gone through the impugned order.
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.18 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-2922-2024
-2-
As per the case pleaded by the wife in the applica�on under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, though she had appeared in person but she was induced by the husband to believe that he would withdraw the pe��on and rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home and because of that assurance, she has not appeared in the Court. By taking into account these factors that applica�on under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed.
This Court does not find any jus�fica�on for se3ng aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 which is based upon proper apprecia�on of facts.
No merits. Dismissed.
( DEEPAK GUPTA )
JUDGE
September 18, 2024
Nee�ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.18 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the husband's appeal against the order setting aside the ex parte divorce decree.
Whether the forum below correctly applied Order 9 Rule 13 CPC based on the wife's assurance of withdrawal and rehabilitation.
Whether there were merits to interfere with the lower court's factual appreciation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagpal Singh
Simranjeet Kaur
DEEPAK GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
