Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Harmandeep Bawa vs Sh. Daman Bawa on 5 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
( 2024:HHC:7963 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO(FC) no.11 of 2022
Decided on: 5th September, 2024
_______________________________________________________
.
Smt. Harmandeep Bawa ....Appellant.
Versus
Sh. Daman Bawa ...Respondent.
_______________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Appellant:
r to Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Rachna Kuthiala, Ms.Amita
Chandel, Mr. Uday Kuthiala and
Mr.Dhruv Kuthiala, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)
Heard both sides.
2. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in HMA
no.73-P/III/20/18 dt.28.12.2020, whereby the said Court had
granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent in the
Appeal ex parte.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the petition for divorce was initially filed by the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
respondent before the Additional District Judge-III at
Dharamshala. Later it was directed to be taken up before the
Circuit Court camp at Baijnath, but it was taken up in the Camp
.
Court at Palampur. Later it was again listed before the Principal
Judge, Family Court at Baijnath and thereafter again at Palampur
and ultimately decision was rendered by the Family Court adverse
to the appellant.
4. We have perused the record of the Divorce Petition sent
by District Judge, Family Court, Kangra, which indicates that
when the hearing of the matter was changed from Dharamshala to
Baijnath, though notice was issued to the appellant, but it was not
served on the appellant. Yet the Court proceeded to hear arguments
of the respondent and then passed the impugned order on
28.12.2020.
5. We are of the opinion that absence of service of the
notice of the transfer of hearing of the case from Dharamshala to
Baijnath has caused serious prejudice to the appellant as the
appellant was deprived of the opportunity to contest the matter and
defend herself.
6. Merely because the appellant had been set ex parte
initially prior to such transfer of the case in 2018, cannot be a
ground to deny the appellant the opportunity to defend herself in
the proceedings even thereafter, when the hearing took place and
arguments were heard at Baijnath and later when again the matter
.
was heard at Dharamshala.
7. In this view of the matter, without expressing any
opinion on the merits on the contentions of the parties, the
impugned judgment dt.28.12.2020 passed in HMA no.73-
P/111/20/18 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala to decide
afresh in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the said
Court on 15.10.2024 before the said Court at Dharamshala. The
record of the trial Court which has been forwarded to this Court
shall be sent back to the Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala
immediately.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao )
Chief Justice
5th September, 2024 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(priti) Judge
