FAO No. 2780 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2780 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2009 Sandeep Singh Sandhu ... Appellant vs Amarjit Kaur Brar .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, wherein the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce dated 10.1.2007 was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the appellant and respondent got married on 25.3.2004. At the time of marriage, the respondent was living in Canada and the appellant was in India. However, after the marriage, the appellant also joined her in Canada. Due to temperamental differences, they could not pull on together. The respondent got FIR No. 16 registered against the appellant and his family members under Sections 406, 498-A, 420, 120-B IC at Police Station Faridkot on 5.2.2005. A divorce petition was filed by the respondent on 22.8.2006 in which the appellant was proceeded against ex-parte and decree of divorce was passed on 10.1.2007. The application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed on 5.4.2008 which was dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case was not served properly. The summoned issues to him were returned back with the report “unclaimed”. In fact, the appellant was not living at the given address on which the summons were sent. Considering the aforesaid fact, the order passed by the learned court below directing the appellant to be proceeded against ex-parte, was wrong. The same deserves to be set aside and the appellant be granted an opportunity to defend the divorce petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent had mentioned the address in the divorce petition as was available with her in terms of the correspondence with the appellant. The divorce petition FAO No. 2780 of 2009 -2- was filed on 22.8.2006. In a communication from the appellant to the respondent on 23.2.2007, the appellant had mentioned the address which was furnished by the respondent in the divorce petition and from that address the summons were received back with the report “unclaimed”. He further submitted that after the grant of decree of divorce on 10.1.2007, though ex-parte, the respondent waited for more than one year and remarried on 21.1.2008 and considering the said fact, it would not be appropriate to set aside the ex-parte decree. It was further pointed out that both appellant as well as the respondent are residing in Canada and are represented by their attorneys. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Considering the facts of the case, as mentioned aforesaid and especially the fact that both the appellant and the respondent are residing in Canada, the litigation is being contested through attorneys, further the fact that after the grant of decree of divorce, though ex-parte, on 10.1.2007, the respondent had even remarried on 21.1.2008, this court would not like to interfere in such a matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 22.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge