Suman vs Ghewar Chand @ Rinku
2022 Latest Caselaw 9996 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1374/2019

Suman W/o Shri Ghewar Chand @ Rinku, Aged About 30 Years, D/o Shri Prithvi Raj Tak, B/c Mali, R/o Mangalpura, Ladnu, District Nagaur.

----Appellant Versus Ghewar Chand @ Rinku S/o Shri Natthuram Kachhawa, B/c Mali, R/o Sujandesar, District Bikaner.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s)         :     -



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment

01/08/2022

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 28 of the

Hindu Marriage Act for assailing the order dated 11.03.2019

passed by the Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner rejecting the

application preferred by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 read

with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte

judgment and decree 27.06.2017, whereby the application

preferred by the respondent Ghewar Chand under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce was accepted.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by Mr. Sushil Solanki, leaned counsel representing the

appellant, and have gone through the impugned judgment and the

original record.

(2 of 3) [CMA-1374/2019]

Mr. Solanki urged that the Family Court proceeded in an

absolutely arbitrary and hasty manner while directing the

proceedings of the divorce petition to be undertaken ex parte and

decreeing the application of the respondent without providing

appropriate opportunity to the appellant to defend herself. He

urged that it is a case of a single absence of the appellant from

the proceedings and hence, the Family Court should have adopted

a pragmatic approach and should not have dismissed the

application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in a sheerly lackadaisical

manner.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar. We may note that the respondent

herein filed the application for dissolution of marriage in the

Family Court No.1, Bikaner on 30.03.2016. The appellant herein

denies having received notice of the said application. The Family

Court made the proceedings ex parte by order dated 13.04.2017

because the appellant failed to appear and defend her cause. The

application was finally decreed vide judgment dated 27.06.2017.

A petition for transfer of the matter had been filed by the

appellant in this court on 02.05.2017, but she tried to portray in

the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that the notice of the

divorce application was not served upon her. Considering the fact

that the appellant had filed the Transfer Petition No.60/2017 in

this court on 02.05.2017, i.e. well before the proceedings came to

be concluded by the Family Court, it has to be presumed that the

appellant had received notice of the divorce application filed by

the respondent. In this background, no genuine grounds were

available to the appellant to seek setting aside of the ex parte

decree. The order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Family Court

(3 of 3) [CMA-1374/2019]

rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule

13 CPC does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or error

whatsoever warranting interference therein.

Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of

merit.

                                   (FARJAND ALI),J                                       (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    44-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)