C.R. No.1640 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1640 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Smt. Anil .....Petitioner Versus Sh. Anil Kumar ....Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision petition is against the order dismissing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband. The application had been moved by the wife on the ground that she had not appeared in Court on the date of hearing on 02.04.2002 only because she had not been actually served with summons and that as soon as she came to know about the decree, she filed an application to set it aside along with an application to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the application. That application also came to be disposed of on 14.11.2002 for default of appearance of the counsel. Against the order of dismissal, she had filed a Civil Misc. Application No.245 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. The Court found that there was no justification for her absence and even the absence of the counsel on the date of hearing was not justified. The Appellate Court was not C.R. No.1640 of 2004 (O&M) -2- prepared to accede the plea on behalf of the wife that her counsel was celebrating the marriage of his son elsewhere at Delhi and therefore, even her counsel could not appear in the Court, when the matter was called. The Appellate Court also rejected the contention of the woman that she did not herself know the exact location of the court and the fact that the Courts were held in newly constructed premises. The Appellate Court Judge found that the opening of Courts was a matter of public knowledge in the vicinity and therefore, she was not justified in saying that she did not also know where the Court proceedings were held. On all these grounds, the Court below rejected the appeal and found that the application for restoration could not be entertained. 2. At the time when the matter is called, both the parties are not present but this matter has been identified as one of the cases for quick disposal in Samadhan 2009. I do not feel compelled to go into the merits of the case but I am of the view that in a matter relating to matrimonial relations which has immense bearing to the civil status of the individuals, there shall be full opportunity to enter contest on all issues. The Court below ought to have granted an opportunity for the case to be taken up on merits and allowed the application for restoration of the petition and must have taken up the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The civil revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak in Civil Misc. Application No.245 of 2002 is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the trial Court afresh for consideration of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce granted on 02.04.2002. Having regard to the fact that the case C.R. No.1640 of 2004 (O&M) -3- had been filed in the year 2002, it is requested that the application is taken up and disposed of on merits as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months. The civil revision petition is allowed in above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11, 2009 Pankaj*