Karnataka High Court
Pushpa @ Renuka vs Ashokaraddy on 21 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
MFA No. 202955 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202955 OF 2023 (MC)
BETWEEN:
PUSHPA @ RENUKA W/O ASHOKARADDY
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADAGIRI - 585223.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHEEMARAYYA M N, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed ASHOKARADDY S/O SHIVALINGAREDDY YELHERI
by RAMESH AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH R/O. M. HOSALLI, TQ & DIST: YADAGIRI,
COURT OF DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586202.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 16.12.2022 PASSED IN MC NO. 09/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE YADGIR AT
YADGIR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
MFA No. 202955 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
1. Though this case is listed for hearing on
Interlocutory Application IA.I/2023, since the respondent is
served and unrepresented, we allow the application IA.I/2023
and condone the delay in filing this appeal. The matter is taken
up for final hearing.
2. The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed in
MC.No.09/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge at Yadgir (for short,
hereinafter referred to as the "Family Court").
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the respondent-Ashokaraddy had filed the
petition under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1-b)(2) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking grant of decree of divorce. The notice issued
to the respondent has not been duly served on the appellant
herein. The order sheet dated 17.02.2022 of the Family Court
reveals that the Court has passed an order to re-issue notice to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
the respondent and posted the matter on 25.03.2022. That on
25.03.2022, the petitioner had paid the process fee to issue
notice to the respondent. However, the Family Court on the
same day, passed an order that "Respondent is called out
absent. Service of notice on the last date of hearing is held
sufficient. The respondent is placed ex-parte." The same is
contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as to the service
of notice to the respondent was not ensured and the
respondent had no knowledge as to the proceedings. Taking
undue advantage of the non-appearance of the respondent, the
petitioner obtained ex-parte order of judgment and decree in
his favour which is not sustainable under law. On all these
grounds, the appellant sought for allowing this appeal and to
remand the case to the Family Court for fresh disposal in
accordance with law by providing an opportunity to the
appellant to file her objection to the petition and contest the
case.
4. We have examined the materials, including the
certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to MC No.09/2021
placed by the counsel for the appellant, today before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
Having perused the material placed before us today, the only
point that would arise for our consideration is:
Whether the appellant has made out a ground to
remand the matter back to the Trial Court for
providing any opportunity to file her written
statement and to contest the case in accordance
with law?
5. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet of
the trial Court reveals that the Family Court passed order on
05.04.2021 to take steps and the case was posted for
14.07.2021. On 14.07.2021, the Family Court has passed an
order to issue notice to the respondent through Registered Post
Acknowledgement Due and the same was returned with shara
"unserved". Then the case was posted to 12.08.2021. From
12.08.2021 till 03.01.2022 the case was being adjourned for
want of taking necessary steps to the respondent. On
03.01.2022, process fee with address was furnished and the
case was posted to 17.02.2022 and on 17.02.2022, the trial
Court passed an order to re-issue notice to respondent and
posted the matter to 25.03.2022. On 25.03.2022, process fee
was paid. On that day, the Family Court ought to have issued
the notice to the respondent. Instead, the Family Court passed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
an ex-parte order holding that service of notice on the last date
of hearing is held sufficient, which is not sustainable under law.
6. Apart from this, a perusal of order sheet reveals
that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory
provisions of Order VI Rule 14A of CPC, as the petitioner has
not furnished the registered address of the party by filing
declaration under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC. The Family Court
has not insisted the petitioner to comply the mandatory
provisions of Order VI Rule 14A, CPC. It is appropriate to
mention here as to the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule
14A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was inserted by Act
104 of 1976 which came into force on 01st February, 1977. The
same reads as follows:
"14A. Address for service of notice.--
(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be
accompanied by a statement in the prescribed
form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the
address of the party.
(2) Such address may, from time to time, be changed
by lodging in Court a form duly filled up and stating
the new address of the party and accompanied by a
verified petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
(3) The address furnished in the statement made under
sub-rule (1) shall be called the "registered address"
of the party, and shall, until duly changed as
aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party
for the purpose of service of all processes in the
suit or in any appeal from any decree or order
therein made and for the purpose of execution, and
shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a period
of two years after the final determination of the
cause or matter.
(4) Service of any process may be effected upon a
party at his registered address in all respects as
though such party resided thereat.
(5) Where the registered address of a party is
discovered by the Court to be incomplete. false or
fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion,
or on the application of any party, order--
(a) in the case where such registered address
was furnished by a plaintiff, stay of the suit,
or
(b) in the case where such registered address
was furnished by a defendant, his defence
be struck out and he be placed in the same
position as if he had not put up any
defence.
(6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is struck out
under sub-rule (5), the plaintiff or, as the case may
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
be, the defendant may, after furnishing his true
address, apply to the Court for an order to set aside
the order of stay or, as the case may be, the order
striking out the defence.
(7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was prevented
by any sufficient cause from filing the true address
at the proper time, shall set aside the order of stay
or order striking out the defence, on such terms as
to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall
appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or
defence, as the case may be.
(8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the Court from
directing the service of a process at any other
address, if, for any reason, it thinks fit to do so."
7. The provisions of Rule 14A of Order VI of Code of
Civil Procedure are mandatory and non compliance may result
in disastrous consequences for the party failing to furnish a
correct and proper address. If the plaintiff provides an
incomplete, false, or fictitious address, the Court can stay
further proceedings of the suit. Similarly, if the defendant fails
to provide the proper and correct address, the defence may be
struck off, placing the defendant in a position as if no defence
had been put forth.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the decision
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of YELLAPPA
BY HIS LRs v. SMT. YASHODABAI reported in AIR 2004 KAR
388, was circulated by this Court to all the Judicial Officers in
the State for strict compliance and observance vide Circular
No.LCA.I/169/2003 dated 22nd August 2003. In spite of the
said Circular, the Presiding Officer has not insisted the
petitioner to comply with the said provision.
9. It is also apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS
LIMITED v. KASHIRAM VERMA rendered in Civil Appeal No.5758
of 2012 disposed of on 16th March, 2023, wherein at paragraph
19 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"19. If any party approaches any authority for a
relief, the first thing required to be mentioned is his
complete address. Mentioning of address of the
representative is secondary as someone may like to
appear in person. Even in Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Order VI Rule 14A provides that in every pleading, the
parties are required to furnish their complete addresses
and if there is any change, it is required to be
informed."
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
10. In the instant case, the petitioner having failed to
comply with the provisions of Order VI Rule 14A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, as such the appellant herein has made out a
ground to remand the matter back to the Family Court for
providing an opportunity to the appellant herein to file her
written statement and proceed with the matter in accordance
with law. Accordingly, we answer the point arose for
consideration, in the affirmative. In the result, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed;
b) The judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022
passed in MC No. 09/2021 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Yadgir, is hereby set aside;
c) The matter is remitted back to the Family
Court with a direction to provide an
opportunity to the appellant/respondent to file
her written statement to the petition and
thereafter, proceed with the case in
accordance with law;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8672-DB
d) The Family Court is directed to issue notice to
both parties to appear before the Court and
after appearance, shall proceed with the case
in accordance with law;
e) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
CT: PS
