SA/31/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 31 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4297 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= ALKA @ ALAKNANDA VIPULKUMAR MEHTA - Appellant(s) Versus VIPULKUMAR GAJUBHAI MEHTA P.O.A.NILESH.G.MEHTA. - Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR BHARAT JANI for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 25/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this Second Appeal, the appellant - original defendant - wife has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2006, whereby the appeal of the present appellant was SA/31/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this Second Appeal is that the appellant - original defendant married to respondent - original plaintiff on 6.3.1994 at village Jalalpore, Gandevi Road, Dist. Navsari as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of this wedlock, the appellant had given a birth to a child named Rishi on 1.11.1997. The appellant being Greencard holder of U.S.A. had gone to America after about a month from the date of marriage and after a period of about 4 months, the appellant had come back to India. In the initial stage of marriage, everything was good but subsequently, some difference of opinion arose between the appellant and respondent. Thereafter, the appellant had gone to U.S.A. and at that time, the respondent - husband filed H.M.P. No. 10 of 2003 before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari for dissolution of marriage and said H.M.P. was proceeded in the absence of appellant - wife, for want of due process of service. The respondent had made false affidavit that the notice was served on the appellant and therefore, a decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari by an order dated 24.10.2003 below Exhibit 21 and 22. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant - wife had filed Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2006, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Navsari on 25.7.2006. Being aggrieved by aforesaid two orders, the appellant has filed this Second Appeal before this Court. SA/31/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. A contention has been raised by the learned advocate for the appellant that decree was passed an ex parte. However, it was noticed that the Registry was directed to serve the notice to the present appellant, but it was returned. In view of this matter, service was proper and after considering the evidence on record, the appeal was dismissed. There is a clear finding of the Appellate Court that the appellant failed to convince the Court on the question of non-service of notice. The Appellate Court was convinced that the proceedings of service of notice is legal. There is nothing on record to take a different view of the matter. the Even otherwise the decree was passed in the year 2003 i.e. on 24.10.2003 and the appeal was preferred only on 31.8.2005. In the meantime, the respondent husband has remarried and settled in U.S.A. 4. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the appeal of the present appellant. Looking to the reasons recorded by the learned Appellate Court, more particularly, para 12 to 16, wherein the service of summons and affidavit discussed, I do not find any merits in this appeal. Nothing is pointed out to take a different view of the matter. Further no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. 5. Since the Second Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application would not SA/31/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT survive and is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) ynvyas