Case: Vikas Agarwal Vs. Anubha

The appellant and the respondent were married on 11.05.1999. Thereafter they went to USA. They do not seem to have pulled on well so much so that the appellant filed a divorce petition in America as early as on 22.7.1999. The notice of the said proceedings was served on the respondent. She however, left America and somehow managed to come back to India. She filed a suit on 6.9.1999 in Delhi High Court being Suit No. 1966 impleading the appellant Shri Vikas Agarwal as defendant and praying that a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to live separately, for maintenance amounting to 1500 dollars (Rs. 65,250/-) expenses pendantalite etc. and for such other, further orders, directions as the Court would deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court passed an interim order on 5.11.1999 in the followingthe present in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendants if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A. is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State at Connecticut, U.S.A. for a period of thirty days from today".The appellant however, moved an application on 12.11.1999 for recall of the order dated 5.11.1999. The Court was later on informed on 16.12.1999 that decree for divorce had been passed at Connecticut U.S.A. The learned Single Judge, on 9.3.2000 passed an order, directing the defendant to appear in person, under order 10 C.P.C. The defendant preferred an appeal against the Order dated 9.3.2000 before the Division Bench which was withdrawn with a statement that an application will be moved before the learned Single Judge for recall of the order. It will not be necessary to mention about many other applications, which has been moved in that connection from time to time. The fact remains that ultimately by order dated 24.8.2000, the Court struck of the defence of the appellant: The operative part of the order reads asis quite clear that despite several opportunities granted to the defendant to appear before this Court he has resolutely refused to do so. The defence of defendant is therefore, struck of.An appeal preferred against the said order before the Division Bench of the High Court has also been dismissed which order has been impugned in the present appeal.

Reasoning: This Court also give time to the learned counsel for the appellant to find out in case it would possible for him to appear before the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court. The learned counsel has placed before the Court a letter received from the appellant addressed to his counsel dated March 7, 2002 expressing his inability to visit India for another 6 to 9 months due to financial and job constraints. He further informs that he is involved in many mission-critical projects. Therefore, granting of leave, would also not be possible, to him. It is also indicated that he has no property, no house, no bank account, no job and no place to live in India. These facts are hardly relevant for the purposes of present matter. We need not go into the other facts and circumstances, which have been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent to show the manner in which, within two months of the marriage, the appellant had filed "no fault divorce" in American Court and obtained decree on agreement in the teeth of injunction order dated 5.11.1999 passed by the Delhi High Court and the appellant having abandoned the plaintiff-respondent in America and the difficulties with which she managed to return to India.We would like to observe that Order X CPC in an enabling provision providing that the court at the first hearing of the suit shall ascertain from each party about their pleadings. It does not in any manner place any bar on the powers of the court to seek clarification from any party in an appropriate case, at any date earlier than one fixed for framing of issues so as to advance the interest of justice. It would not be in violation of Order X CPC or in conflict thereof. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondent and find that the appeal lacks merit so as to call for any interference by us under Article 136 of the Constitution.