Dismissed

Surendra Singh v. Bhagwat Kanwar

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2022CMA/311/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal against a Family Court order restoring a divorce application. The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to set aside an ex-parte decree, finding prima facie evidence of fraudulent service and the appellant's subsequent remarriage within ten days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the order restoring the divorce application was dismissed along with the stay application.

Surendra Singh Vs Bhagwat Kanwar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 311/2022

¶3

Surendra Singh S/o Hari Singh Rajput, Aged About 32 Years, Nathji Ka Kheda, Tehsil Sahda, District Bhilwara

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhagwat Kanwar, Nathji Ka Kheda, Tehsil Sahda, District Bhilwara

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Arvind Samdariya. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Sidh.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

14/03/2022

¶12

The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Surendra Singh for assailing the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.6/2019, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. preferred by the respondent Smt.Bhagwat Kanwar was accepted and the ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court on 27.4.2017 on the application of the appellant herein was set aside and a further direction was given to restore the divorce application on its original number for being proceeded and decided as per law.

¶13

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned order.

¶14

Shri Arvind Samdariya learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urges that the respondent

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CMA-311/2022]

¶17

deliberately avoided accepting the notices issued by the Family Court and thus, there was no option with the Family Court but to accept the application for divorce filed by the appellant.

¶18

Shri Vivek Sidh learned counsel representing the respondent opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel and urges that as a matter of fact, the appellant cheated the respondent as well as the court in the matter of getting the process served upon the respondent. Service was never effected and a false report was managed by the appellant. The respondent was staying in the matrimonial home and the place of her residence was fraudulently shown at her parental home and the notices were got returned by marking an incorrect note of refusal. Attention of the court was drawn to the statement of the appellant recorded in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. wherein, he admitted that Bhagwat Kanwar was residing in one of his houses at Nath-Ka-Kheda. Shri Sidh further pointed out that the appellant remarried another woman just within a period of ten days from the date of issuance of the divorce decree dated 27.4.2017, which was fraudulently procured from the Family Court.

¶19

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced at the bar and after going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the Family Court was absolutely justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. There is prima-facie evidence available on record to satisfy the Court that the report on the notices of the divorce application was fraudulently stage-managed by the appellant herein and the process was never served upon the respondent. The lady was actually residing in one of the houses provided to her by the

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CMA-311/2022]

¶22

appellant whereas, her address was wrongly given out to be of her parental village. Another strong indication of the fraudulent action of the appellant is that he remarried another woman within a few days of the issuance of the decree of divorce. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara is absolutely justified and does not require any interference therein.

¶23

As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. Stay application is also dismissed.

¶24

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶25

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶26

/tarun goyal/ 45

Surendra Singh v. Bhagwat Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. Bhagwat Kanwar

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

Khetu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prasad Vs Hemant Kumar Gera

Om Prakash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Govind Mathur Vs State and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jetha Ram Suthar Vs Union of India