Civil Revision No. 2735 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2735 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.4.2011 *** Rakesh Gupta .. Petitioner Vs. Jyoti .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Vide impugned order dated 23.12.2010, the ex-parte divorce decree granted in favour of the petitioner-husband vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.2010, has been set aside on an application filed by the respondent-wife. Heard. It emerges out from the paper-book that the stand of the respondent was that though she was served with the copy of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but on the false representation made by the petitioner regarding withdrawal of the petition, she did not appear before the Court and was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.10.2009. However, later in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she learnt about the ex-parte divorce being passed by the Court against her. From the impugned order, it is evident that her this very stand was proved by none else but own father of the petitioner and father-in-law of respondent. It is discernible from para No.9 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- “9. It may be mentioned here that father of respondent had appeared in this court on 7.12.2010 and Civil Revision No. 2735 of 2011 2 has also got recorded his statement to the effect that he is father of Rakesh Gupta/ respondent and applicant Jyoti is his daughter in law. On 6.10.2010 Rakesh and Jyoti were residing along with him and on that day Jyoti had received summons of this court and after receiving the same, all the family members were astonished and accordingly on 11.10.2009 all the family members including him and his other sons gathered in the house and Rakesh was also present there. He was made to understand by all the family members and was reprimanded for his illegal act and he was made to understand and not to spoil his future and of his children and he felt his mistake and gave understanding to withdraw the divorce petition on 12.10.2009 and also stated that there was no necessity for his wife to go to the court as he would withdraw the petition.” Thus, from the above, it is clear that it was the false promise of the petitioner that prevented the respondent to appear before the Court, in order to contest the case. Thus, being based on mis-representation, the learned Court below rightly set aside the ex-parte divorce decree granted in favour of the petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Jiten