Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Meher vs Ranjita Meher & Another on 30 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.125 of 2022
Prafulla Kumar Meher ......... Appellant
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Patra, Adv.
-Versus-
Ranjita Meher & another ......... Respondents
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
30.08.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/
Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Patra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant.
3. This appeal U/S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises
from the order dated 21.04.2022 delivered in C.M.A. No.03 of 2016,
renumbered as C.M.A. No.06 of 2019, from C.S. No.126 of 2014.
4. The C.M.A. as aforementioned was filed under Order-9, Rule-
13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree of
divorce dated 28.10.2015 delivered in the said suit (Annexure-3 to
this Memorandum of Appeal).
5. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Senior Civil Judge,
Sonepur decreed the suit filed by the appellant by way of granting
divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The appellant has
stated that the respondents herein had not been deliberately attending
the proceeding being C.S. No.126 of 2014. As a measure of abundant
caution, the substituted service was caused to attract the attention of
the respondents in respect of pendency of the said suit for divorce, but
the respondents did not appear. Consequent thereupon, on recording
the evidence ex parte, the proceeding culminated into a decree of
divorce on dissolution of marriage subsisted between the parties. The
said ex parte order was challenged in C.M.A. as aforestated on the
ground that proper notice was not served on the respondent No.1. The
said plea was accepted by the Judge, Family Court, Sonepur on
observing as follows:
"In the present case, it is found that from the materials
available on record that the notice was not duly served on
the petitioner and therefore, she was prevented by
sufficient cause for her non-appearance. From the
testimony of P.W.1, it is found that by furnishing her
wrong address, the Opp. Party managed to obtain the ex
parte decree from the Court on false and frivolous grounds
and subsequently she contacted with her lawyer and filed
the present application. As per her evidence her non-
appearance in C.S. No.126 of 2014 was not intentional but
the situation was beyond her control. O.P.W.1
categorically stated that the P.W.1-the petitioner avoided
to receive the notice and accordingly the notice was
published on daily newspaper. It is found from the record
that the O.P. has failed to prove the said newspaper in the
present proceeding and therefore, it can never be said that
notice was properly served on the petitioner."
6. Having observed thus, ex parte judgment and decree have
been set-aside by the impugned judgment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The
above finding has been challenged in this appeal.
7. It appears to us that even if the whole allegation of
manipulation is taken into consideration, we may assume that the
notice was not properly served on the respondent-wife. That apart, in
a matrimonial suit, the rule of the Court is that there should be an
initiative to reconstruct the marriage. The estranged spouses may,
during the proceeding, change their hard attitude and come forward
for reunion. That is the reason why a special role has been attributed
to the Family Courts. Even before entering into the issues to be
decided, it has been directed that there should be a substantive effort
to reconstruct the marriage or to bring out a conciliation between the
parties.
8. Taking a holistic view, we are persuaded to hold that there is
no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.04.2022, Annexure-4 to
the Memorandum of Appeal.
9. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed at the threshold.
10. Before parting with the records, we appreciate the anxiety of
Mr. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is
possibility of the suit being protracted for long time. The statute
provides that the matrimonial suit be decided within six months.
11. We, therefore, direct the Judge, Family Court, Sonepur to
proceed with expedition so that abovementioned matrimonial suit can
be decided within the time frame of six months.
12. Draw the decree accordingly.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the Judge, Family Court,
Sonepur.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Subhasis
