Mukesh vs Smt Rani Kumari on 25 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3745 / 2013
Mukesh S/o Bhagnaram, B/c Lodha, R/o Village Kuchawati, Tehsil
Deeg.
—-Appellant
Versus
Smt Rani Kumari W/o Mukesh D/o Rambabu, B/c Lodha, R/o
Kalyanpur, Kallu Ka Nagla, Distt. Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
—-Respondent

__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Reashm Bhargava.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek.

__
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI
Judgment
25/01/2018

(1) Learned Counsel for the respondent states that inspite

of registered letters being sent to the respondent she is not

contacting the Counsel.

(2) The appellant sued for divorce and the respondent was

served by publication. She was proceeded against ex-parte.

Decree for divorce was granted ex-parte on 11.05.2009. The

respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code

of Civil Procedure pointing out that the newspaper in which

publication was effected was other than the one in which citation

had to be published. This has influenced the learned Judge, Family

Court to pass the impugned order dated 10.10.2013. Application

filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
(2 of 3)
[CMA-3745/2013]

Procedure has been allowed. Ex-parte decree of divorce dated

11.05.2009 has been recalled.

(3) During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court

the parties entered into a settlement because the respondent had

initiated multifarious proceedings against the appellant including a

FIR for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The settlement

has been recorded by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.

Appeal No.6569/2016- Mukesh Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Anr.

The decision is dated 23.01.2017. Certified copy of the said

decision has been placed on record which shows that the appellant

has paid in full and final settlement of all dues of the respondent

`4,50,000/-. She had received the money by a demand draft. The

respondent has agreed to give consent for the marriage to be

dissolved with consent. Custody of the child is with the

respondent. The right of the child over the property of the

appellant has been kept intact. It is obviously a case where the

respondent having received `4,50,000/- is no longer interested in

the proceedings. She is a resident of Agra. She is not even

contacting her Counsel. The settlement between the parties

records that even as per the respondent the marriage has

irrevocably and irretrievably broken down.

(4) Since the respondent has got her dues and is not

cooperating it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned

order and restore the decree of divorce noting that merely

because citation was published in a wrong newspaper. This is

irrelevant. The newspaper in which the citation was published was

published in Agra and had circulation in Agra.

(3 of 3)
[CMA-3745/2013]

(5) The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated

10.10.2013 is set aside. Ex parte decree dated 11.05.2009 is

restored.

(6) No costs.

(G R MOOLCHANDANI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J.

N.Gandhi/Ashwani/35

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *