Allahabad High Court
Sharad Verma vs Ritu Katiyar on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 122 of 2022
Appellant :- Sharad Verma
Respondent :- Ritu Katiyar
Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishal Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though notice was issued and served to her.
3. By means of the instant appeal the appellant has challenged an order dated 8.10.2022 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge-V, Family Court, Lucknow, allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. filed by the defendant-respondent for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.9.2012 passed in Regular Suit No. 345 of 2012 whereby the marriage between the parties has been declared to be void.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was stated by the respondent that she had been turned out of her matrimonial home on 1.4.2012. She had filed Complaint No. 1117 of 2012 under sections 498-A, 452, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, Fatehgarh.
5. The appellant had filed an application No. 9119 of 2013 under section 482, Cr.P.C. wherein the respondent was summoned and the matter was referred for Mediation. The mediation failed and the application under section 482, Cr.P.C. was listed before the Court on 21.1.2014, in which application the appellant made a mention of the Suit No. 345 of 2012 filed under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which had already been decided ex parte.
6. The respondent stated in the application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. that she had acquired knowledge of the suit from the disclosure made by the appellant in his application under section 482, Cr.P.C. and prior to that she did not have any knowledge of the suit and she could not appear and defend the suit for the aforesaid reason.
7. The Family Court allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. filed by the respondent recording the aforesaid facts and held that the appellant could not produce any evidence to establish that the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings of the suit since before, therefore, the Family Court allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C., subject to payment of Rs. 2000.00 as costs.
8. Sri Vishal Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent had acquired knowledge of the proceedings of the suit during mediation proceedings held in the High Court.
9. Mediation proceedings were held on an application under section 482, Cr.P.C., which was filed in the year 2013, whereas the suit had been decreed by means of an order dated 12.9.2012, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable.
10. The summons of the suit were not served upon the respondent and service had been effected through publication in a newspaper. The respondent had stated in her application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. that the summons were published in a daily newspaper, which is not circulated in Farrukhabad, where she resides. There is no other material to establish that the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings of the suit, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order dated 8.10.2022 passed by the Family Court allowing the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. The appeal lacks merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. As the suit was filed in the year 2012, it is provided that the Family Court will make every endeavour to decide the same expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, and will make every endeavour to decide the same within a period of 1 year from the date or production of a certified copy of this order.
(Subhash Vidarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
A.Nigam
