Amit Singh Parihar Alias Golu vs Saumya Singh Alias Chandani And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 22224 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 929 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Amit Singh Parihar Alias Golu
 
Respondent :- Saumya Singh Alias Chandani And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

2. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984) has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2021 (Saumya Singh Vs. Amit Singh), whereby the application of the defendant-respondent for recall of the exparte judgment and decree dated 10.07.2019 passed in O.S. No. 979 of 2018 (Amit Singh Vs. Saumya Singh) has been allowed and exparte judgment and decree has been set aside.

3. Undisputedly, the appellant and respondent no. 1 had filed O.S. No. 979 of 2018, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which the respondent no. 1 appeared on 21.01.2019 and also appeared on 25.01.2019 in Mediation Centre. The next date in O.S. was fixed for 01.03.2019 but the respondent no. 1 fell ill on 28.02.2019 and accordingly intimated to her counsel. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 did not appear in the case. Subsequently, when the respondent no. 1 inquired from her counsel about the case then he told that perhaps the case has been decided. According to the respondent no. 1, she was ill and when she recovered, she came to the Court at Kanpur Nagar on 08.01.2021 and she came to know that the aforesaid divorce case was transferred on 13.03.2019 to the court of Vth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and she came to know that the abovenoted divorce suit has been decreed on 10.07.2019. Therefore, she filed an application dated 21.01.2021 under Order 9 Rule 13 readwith section 151 C.P.C. which has been allowed by impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 as aforesaid. In her application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., she explained the delay in filing the application as well as shown cause for non appearance on the date when the exparte judgment and decree was passed. She stated the cause for non appearance in paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of her affidavit accompanying the application and also sworn on personal knowledge of record, which are reproduced below:-

" 11- यह कि शपथकर्ती दिनांक 8-1-2021 को कानपुर कचेहरी आयी और प्रमुख न्यायाधीश महोदय के कार्यालय गयी तो विदित हुआ कि शपथकर्ती का मुकदमा दिनांक13-3-2019 को श्रीमान पंचम अपर प्रमुख न्यायाधीश महोदय परिवार न्यायालय कानपुर के यहां स्थानान्तरित हो गया।

12- यह कि इस पर शपथकर्ती उसी दिन न्यायालय श्रीमान पंचम प्रमुख न्यायाधीश महोदय के न्यायालय गयी तो वहां से जानकारी मिली कि दिनांक 10-7-2019 को शपथकर्ती के खिलाफ मुकदमा एकपक्षीय निर्णीत हो गया है। यह पता लगाते लगाते तीन बज गया।

14- यह कि निरीक्षण से विदित हुआ कि शपथकर्ती की अनुपस्थिति में दिनांक 27-4-2019 को माननीय न्यायालय ने मूलवाद को एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही करने का आदेश पारित किया तथा दिनांक 10-7-2019 को एकपक्षीय निर्णय कर दिया। "

4. The aforesaid averments of paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of the affidavit accompanying the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. were replied by appellant herein in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of his objection, which are reproduced below:-

" 8- यह कि वादिनीं के प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ समर्थित शपथ पत्र की धारा-11 जिस तरह से लिखी है कहीं भी यह स्पष्ट नहीं है कि क्या उक्त दिनांक 10.03.2019 को अपर प्रमुख पारिवारिक न्यायालय कक्ष संख्या-5, में स्थानान्तरित हुआ था माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांकित 10.07.2019 में यह स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित किया गया है कि प्रतिवादिनीं दिनांक 21.01.2019 को माननीय विचारण न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित हुयी थी के पश्चात दिनांक 27.04.2019 तक प्रतिवादिनीं द्वारा उपस्थित न होने के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी कारण दर्शया नहीं गया है। माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा विधि अनुसार काफी समय याचिनीं को दिया गया था के बावजूद याचिनी तलाक वाद में उपस्थित नहीं हुयी और उसके विरूद्ध एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही अग्रसरित की गयी।

9- यह कि वादिनीं के प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ समर्थित शपथ पत्र की धारा-12 जिस तरह से लिखी है वह अधिवक्ता की सलाह के आधार पर अंकित की गयी है जिससे निर्णय में किसी भी प्रकार की तब्दीली किया जाना न्यायोचित नहीं है।

11- यह कि वादिनीं के प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ समर्थित शपथ पत्र की धारा -14 जिस तरह से लिखी है सत्य एंव सही है। "

5. Bare perusal of the aforesaid quoted paragraphs of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and its reply by the appellant herein, clearly goes to show that the appellant has not disputed that the respondent came to know first time on 08.01.2021 about the transfer of the aforesaid suit from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court to the court of Vth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and she came to know about the said facts only on 08.01.2021, remains undisputed rather stands admitted to the appellant herein. She has also established reasonable cause for non appearance on the date fixed for 01.03.2019 since she fell ill on 28.02.2019. Considering these facts amongst others, the court below came to the conclusion that the respondent was prevented by sufficient cause for non appearance and consequently, set aside the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019 passed in O.S. No. 979 of 2018 and restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs.8,000/- by respondent herein. Thus, the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any error of law. The appeal is totally frivolous and deserves to be dismissed.

6. For all the reasons aforestated, the appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.12.2022

Rmk.