TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... His parents advertised for "homely non-medico" bride. Her parents responded. Marriage took place on January 24, 1988 at Noida near Delhi. They hardly lived as husband and wife at Pune for about seven months when on August 16,1988 the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. He alleged "she had a habit of smoking" and "it was found that she was in the habit of drinking and even once came drunk to the applicant's house and abused everybody". He further alleged "it was found by the applicant that she was working as a model prior to marriage and he found few pic tures of the respondent in bikini and semi-nude clothes in magazines". She vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that she was a homely, vegetarian, non-smoking, teetotaller and faithful house-wife. The Family Court at Pune proceeded ex parte and granted divorce-decree by the order dated November 30, 1989. Wife's application for setting aside the exparte decree was dismissed by the Family Court on June 24, 1990. The High Court by its judgment dated October 10/11, 1990 upheld the findings of the Family Court with the modification that in pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex parte divorce-decree by the Family Court. The appellant in her application inter alia stated as under :- "The applicant submits that the applicant did not receive any notice/letter/summons or communication from this Hon'ble Court's office. Even there was no intimation given by postal authorities and the applicant honestly states that till the receipt of the letter from the Army H.Q., New Delhi, she was not aware of the date of proceeding. The applicant submits, the applicant was under bona fide belief that she will receive a notice from this Hon'ble Court. As such and being far from Pune, either in Noida (U.P.) or at New Delhi, it was not possible for her to approach this Hon'ble Court for any enquiry since she was also not permitted to appear through the lawyer .......... At any rate and in any event, the applicant also did not come across the public notice published in Times of India, New Delhi on 24th October, 1989 as stated in the decree. The applicant submits, the applicant had every intention to resist the marriage petition filed by the opponent since the same was absolutely false, frivolous and out and out false, and has been resisted by the applicant by filing written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate addresses. One of the address was the one shown by applicant herself in Supreme Court petition and the other address was the one which was admitted to be her address in the matrimonial petition (which was address of her father at Delhi). Both these notices were sent by registered post in due course. The court waited till return of this notice. On both these envelopes postal authorities have endorsed that the present applicant was not found on these addresses. The opponent had, therefore, made application that the applicant was avoiding to take notice and hence substituted service by publishing in Times of India be made. Accordingly, a notice was published as per order of the Court on opponent's application .......... Thus the contention of the respondent that she had no notice of the further proceeding in marriage petition does not appear convincing. As stated already in the first instance, there was no necessity for her to wait for receipt of the notice in the circumstances of the present case. The notices sent to her were obviously evaded, otherwise there was no reason why the applicant was [not] found on either of the addresses which she admits to be the correct address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of this prayer, we decline to make any observation. It would appear that the case is now listed before the Family Judge at Pune on 13-4-1990. It will be appropriate that having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner the Court should not proceed with the matter until her prayer for transfer is considered by the High Court. We accordingly direct the Family Court, Pune to stay further proceedings in the case for a period of 60 days from today to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court." 9. It is no doubt correct that the appellant did not approach the High Court for the transfer of the case but the fact remains that she has been seriously contesting the divorce proceedings and it would not be fair to assume that she deliberately chose to abstain from the Family Court and was intentionally avoiding the summons. 10. The Family Court and the High Court have held that after the dismissal of the transfer petition and vacation of stay by this Court the appellant-wife should have, on her own, joined the proceeding before the Family Court. According to the courts below no notice for appearance was required to be sent to the parties after the stay was vacated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y efforts to deliver the registered letters to any of the appellant's relations at the given addresses. The courts below are wholly unjustified in holding that the appellant refused to receive the notices and further that the said notices could have been received by any of her relations on the given addresses. 14. After the notices sent by registered post were received back, the Family Court did not make any attempt to serve the appellant through the process of the Court. The appellant was no stranger to the respondent. She was his wife. It could not have been difficult for him to find out the address where she was staying. Under the circumstances, resort to the substitute service by way of publication in the newspaper was not justified. 15. We are, therefore, of the view that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the appellant in the matrimonial petition before the Family Court. 16. The view we have taken on the first point, it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Family Court dated June 24, 1990 and allow the appellant's application dated December 18, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
