Appeal denied and ordered that the reinstated divorce petition will be subject to dismissal for non-prosecution if the payment is not deposited by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi v. Lajji Devi (Appeal from Order No. 331 of 2022) through Vipin Sanghi, CJ and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondent failed to tell the Court of the address change while the divorce case was still pending. It was determined that she was still living with the appellant as a result. Despite being called, the respondent didn’t show up to challenge the divorce. As a result, the Family Court issued an ex-parte divorce decision on October 30, 2021.
The appellant revealed to the respondent that he had previously gotten a divorce against her at that point after the respondent informed him that the appellant’s behaviour in connection to another woman had caused a dispute between the parties. Then, on May 23, 2022, she filed two applications, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 to request forgiveness for the delay in filing the second application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other to request the annulment of the divorce decree issued ex-parte.
The Family Court noted that since no copy of the acceptance of the said registered post has been received on file, which should indicate that the said registered post has been received by the applicant, there is a good chance that the said registered post was sent by the husband himself and has been received by him alone and that the wife has no knowledge of the said registered post.
JUDGMENT
The Court noted that the appellant gave the same address for both himself and his wife when filing the divorce petition, indicating that she opted to file the petition while cohabitating with the respondent as her husband. According to the court, the husband seriously damaged the marriage institution, which is sacred to Hindus, the religion to which the parties belong.
The Court additionally stated that the appellant should have fairly and firmly separated from his wife prior to filing the divorce petition if he desired a divorce. Even after getting an ex-parte divorce, the appellant kept living with the respondent.
The appellant misled his wife and devised a scheme to fraudulently obtain her signatures on the summons and obtain the process server’s report to show that she had been served in the divorce proceedings, the court stated, while she continued to live with the appellant as his wife in complete ignorance of the said developments.
Accordingly, the Court denied the appeal with fees estimated at Rs. 1,000,000 and stated that his reinstated divorce petition will be subject to dismissal for non-prosecution if the payment is not deposited.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL
Click here to view the judgment
