IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1941 of 2007 MANISH KUMAR THAKUR Versus SMT.SHWETA THAKUR (ROY) ----------- 5. 1.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order is a well considered order, setting aside an ex-parte decree in matrimonial case. Such an order cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under section 115 read with section 19 of the Family Court Act on a simple proposition that the findings recorded therein as with regard to non-service of summons on the wife-opposite party are unexceptional. That apart this Court would not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that if the lady was living in the State of Utter Pradesh, a publication of a notice by way of substituted service in “Amar Ujjala some newspaper in Delhi would amount to an effective service. In this respect the court below has also come to clear finding that even the summons under the registered cover was not served on the wife-opposite party on account of wrong address given by the petitioner. 2 In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner seeking to assail the order setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce. At this stage Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha would submit that there has been now an irreversible position for the petitioner inasmuch as after the ex-parte decree of divorce on 30.6.2006 has already married a second lady on 2.10.2006 and therefore, now even if prayer for divorce of the petitioner fails, he cannot take back the opposite party as his wife. This Court is not impressed with the said defence of the petitioner inasmuch as the suit was decreed ex-parte on 30.6.2006 and if the marriage of the petitioner is said to have performed his marriage on 2.10. 2006, he cannot get the benefit of such defence when the decree of divorce had been obtained by the petitioner by giving an incorrect address of his wife in the notices sent to her. The concept of a divorced person to marry again in form of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and lawfulness of such marriage is always 3 subject to the conditions under Section 5 of the Act. Thus in the event the prayer for divorce of the petitioner is rejected his marriage with Vandita Thakur would be automatically rendered as void. In any event this plea was not pressed by the petitioner before the Court below for resisting the prayer of setting aside the ex-parte decree of the wife-opposite party and thus cannot be raised for the first time before this Court in this Civil Revision application. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in the aforementioned submissions and accordingly, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/