CR No.1572 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.1572 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2010 **** Satyawan . . . . Petitioner VS. Smt. Minakshi . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Kartar Singh Malik (1), Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondent for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce in which respondent was proceeded against ex parte and vide ex parte decree dated 20.3.2006 marriage between the petitioner and respondent was dissolved by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. Respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.3.2006 passed in Hindu Marriage Act case No.36 of 2004, which has been allowed by the learned Court below vide its order dated 23.11.2009 and the divorce petition has been restored to its original CR No.1572 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 – number. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 23.11.2009 in the present Revision Petition, inter alia, on the ground that respondent was duly served before she was proceeded against ex parte because summon sent to her was received back with the report of refusal and was again summoned through registered post and when she did not appear, a publication was also made in ‘Punjab Kesri’ newspaper. It is alleged that she was proceeded against ex parte on 15.2.2006 and after taking ex parte evidence on behalf of the petitioner, ex parte judgment and decree was delivered on 20.3.2006. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Court below has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. Learned Court below, while allowing application, has observed as under: - “I have gone through the entire file of the divorce petition titled as Satyawan Vs. Meenakshi, decided on 20.3.2006 and said file has been attached along with the present application and after going through the orders, it is clear that summons sent to the applicant/respondent Meenakshi not received back either served or unserved on 3.1.2005, 21.3.2005 and 2.5.2005. Vide order dated 21.7.2005, it is clear that for want of PF and RC, respondent was not summoned and it was ordered that respondent be summoned for 19.9.2005. As per the order sheet, the file was not taken up on 19.9.2005 and as per order dated 20.5.2005, summons sent to the CR No.1572 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 – respondent received back with the report of refusal and respondent was again summoned for 19.10.2005 on filing of R.C. and copy of petition. Summon which was sent for 19.9.2005 is attached with the file and after going through the report on the back of the summon, it is clear that applicant / respondent was not residing on that address and she has shifted to the new address i.e. F-53(B), Gali No.3, Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The report on the summon dated 19.9.2005 clearly shows that the address that the address mentioned in the divorce petition was not correct and in fact applicant/respondent was residing at new address. Vide order dated 19.10.2005, case was adjourned to 30.01.2005 for notice to the respondent. As per registered letter vide which the notice was sent to applicant/respondent Meenakshi, it is clear that despite the report on the summon dated 19.9.2005, the summons were again sent through registered letter on the old and wrong address. Therefore, it is crystal clear that petitioner had knowledge about the correct and latest address of the applicant/respondent but despite that he purposely sent the notices on the wrong address of the applicant/respondent Meenakshi. It is also very strange that no notice of the divorce petition was sent on the village address of the applicant/respondent Meenakshi. Petitioner Satyawan was required to mentioned the correct address of the applicant/respondent Meenakshi and as he has intentionally not mentioned the correct address of the respondent/applicant and, CR No.1572 of 2010 (O&M) - 4 – therefore, it is clear that the impugned judgment dated 20.3.2006 was obtained by the petitioner by concealing the correct address of the respondent/applicant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the applicant. After going through the divorce petition and the summons attached with it and after going through the evidence of the respondent, it is clear that no notice was sent to the respondent/applicant Meenakshi at her father’s address of village Hasangarh and accordingly, issue No.2 is also decided in favour of applicant.” I do not find any error in appreciation of material available on record by the learned Court below in making an opinion that respondent was not duly served and the report of refusal was manipulated by the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, though, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 06.05.2010 JUDGE Vivek