Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ii). To what result?

Pointi :

4.a. For sake of convenience the parties are being referred as arrayed in the divorce petition as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. In deciding the appeal lis formulated supra, the factual background shows that: the H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2001 was filed against the wife under Section 13(1a) and (1b) of the HM Act on 03.08.2001 to dissolve their marriage took place on 22.05.1993 according to Hindu rites and caste customs at Musunur village of Krishna district (AP). It is after the O.P. was numbered, the trial Court on 24.08.2001, ordered summons to the respondent-wife returnable by 29.10.2001 through Court Process Server as per Order V Rule 1 CPC and simultaneously through registered post under Order V Rule 19-A CPC(as was in force). It is important to note that the summons were returned unserved viz.,(i). through the Court Process Server unserved for not residing in the given address & (ii). through registered Post unserved for left without instructions. It is therefrom the Court having felt the need ordered on 29.10.2001 to file batta for fresh summons returnable by 03.12.2001. As batta was paid only on 03.12.2001 with delay condonation petition, same was allowed to issue summons returnable by 31.12.2001. It was as not paid batta properly to issue, on 31.12.2001 the notice batta represented with a petition was allowed and ordered for issuing the summons returnable by 01.02.2002, however, it appears not properly complied with and thereby from 01.02.2002 it was posted to 5.03.2002 with observation notice to respondent batta received, issue summons returnable by 05.03.2002. It was on 05.03.2002, there was an endorsement by the Court clerk on the case docket that the petitioner filed substitute service petition instead of filing notice batta, hence for orders: it is pursuant to the above note put up by the Court clerk, instead of ordering fresh notice on payment of batta, the Court allowed the substitute service application for publication in Janata (paper) of Vijayawada (Edition) returnable by 24.04.2002. It was therefrom the case docket of 24.04.2002 reads that: publication in Janata of Vijayawada filed, respondent was called absent, set ex-parte and P.W.1 is examined. Claim proved. Petition is allowed with costs. Marriage of petitioner with the respondent is dissolved by decree of divorce.

4.b. In fact the trial Court from the above, did not properly conduct the proceedings. It casually ordered for the sake of mere asking the substitute service in a news paper by publication, without foundation as per O.V R.20 CPC of respondent avoids service, and even ordered fresh summons through Court and process not even properly filed in compliance of the orders and more particularly in matrimonial proceedings, summons must be as far as possible by personal service through court process server or registered post or other assured service and not by paper publication, that too even not a paper of wide circulation, besides no order to circulate in the area of respondent`s address at Musunur village of Musunur Mandal/Taluk.

8.d. From above contents of the counter filed by the respondent in this I.A.No.928 of 2003, he did not deny or dispute her pleading specifically of she is residing since November, 1999 at Tadigadapa of Penamalur Mandal, where she is working as a student in-charge in Chaitanya College after she was necked out by him in March,1999 having stayed for some time at her parents house in Musunur and she made efforts through elders for joining him back even while residing at Tadigadapa which is well known to him and even knowing the same he intentionally mentioned a wrong address not even of her parents but as if the C/o. address of one Smt. Veerapaneni Pitchamma. It is no doubt the submission by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband in the appeal in the course of hearing that said Veerapaneni Pitchmma is her grandmother and she is residing with said Pitchamma. However, but for in the attempts now to say that she is maternal grandmother or so to his divorced wife, he did not chose to deny her averments specifically as required by Order VIII Rules 3-5 CPC to this application in I.A.No.928 of 2003 regarding said factum of she has been working by residing at Tadigadapa in Chaitanya college as a student in- charge by staying there from November,1999 even to his knowledge from the efforts made by her through elders for joining him while so stating which he refused even. Even according to his divorce petition averments at para-4 he stated that twice he sent notice in the years 2000-2001 that were returned unserved for not residing there. Thus he could have mentioned by enquiring her correct address in that divorce application at para-4. Even from the above when notices returned unserved for no such addressee, it was his duty to furnish correct address of her to serve the notice through court process server or regd. Post and even so ordered by Court he avoided compliance with no explanation for the same even now, had it been not his fraudulent intention to get the exparte decree behind her back.