MRS. PAYAL ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL versus CAPT. ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 06-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MRS. PAY AL ASH OK KUMAR JINDAL 
A 
v. 
CAPT. ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL 
MAY 6, 1992 
[M.H. KANIA, CJ. AND KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
B 
Family Court's Act, 1984 : Section 10. 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 : Section 13. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or 5. Rule 9, · 10 and Or 9 rule 6. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 136 and 142. 
Divorce proceedings against wife before Family Court Pune--Petition 
for transfer in Supreme Court by wife for transfer of proceedings from Family 
Court Pune to Family Court Delhi-Petition dismissed-Notices by Registered D 
Post and substituted service by Newspaper publication made for appearance 
of wife-Non appearance of wife-Set a parte-Divorce decree granted to 
husband-Application by wife for setting aside ex parte decree-Dis-
missed-High Court conjinning the dismissal order-Appeal by wife to 
Supreme Court-Allowed-Held sufficient cause for non appearance-Ex E 
parte decree set aside-Case transfe"ed to Family Court, Bombay. 
The parties to the appeal were married 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· Respondent filed a petition 
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for dissolution of the 
marriage on the ground of cruelty. He alleged that the wife had a habit of 
smoking and drinking and even once came drunk to the house and abused 
everybody. The wife vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that 
she was a homely, vegetarian, non-smoking, teetotaller and faithful house· 
wife. 
F 
G 
During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce-proceeding before the 
Family Court, Pone, the wife filed a petition, on May 1, 1989, before this 
Court seeking transfer of the case from the Family Court, Pune to Delhi. 
This Court granted ad interim stay of the proceedings which remained 
operative till Septembef 11, 1989 when the Transfer Petition was dismissed H 
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 3 S.C.R. 
A and the stay become vacated. 
Thereafter~ the husband appeared before.the Family Court on Sep-
tember 15, 1989 whereas the wife remained absent. Notices were sent by 
registered post to the wife on her address at Noida and also at her Delhi 
address given in the proceedings before this Court. The notices having 
B come back with the remarks "not found", the Family Court ordered_ sub-
stituted service, and a notice was published in a Delhi daily newspaper 
asking the wife to appear before the Family Court on November 16, 1989. 
The wife not having appeared on the said date the. Family Court ordered 
ex-parte proceedings. The issues were framed on November 21, 1989, 
C evidence of the husband was recorded on November 25, 1989 and the 
judgment _was pronounced on November 30, 1989, granting the husband a 
divorce decree. 
The wife filed on application dated December 18, 1989 for setting 
aside the ex-parte divorce-decree. She contended that she was forced to 
D leave the matrimonial home at Pone and was residing with her parents at 
Noida, and that in October/November, 1989 she had gone to reside with 
her brother at Delhi, that she applied to the Army Authorities claiming 
maintenance out of her husband's salary, and that the Army Authorities 
sent a letter dated December 14, 1989 t9 her father informing that the 
E application for maintenance could not be entertained as the husband had 
already obtained a divorce decree from the Court. She further £ontended 
that for the first time on or about December 14, 1989 she came to know 
from her father that her husband had been granted an ex-parte divorce 
decree by the Family Court. 
F 
The Family Court dismissed the application for setting aside ex-
parte divorce-decree, and the High Court upheld the reasoning and con-
clusions reached by the Family Court and dismissed the appeals filed hy 
the wife. 
In the appeal to this Court by the wife it was contended that: (1) The 
G Family Court and the High Court grossly erred in dismissing the applica-
tion flied by tJie appellant for setting aside the ex·parte proceedings; (2) 
the divorce petition should have been dlsmlHed as ,not competent In terms 
_ . ...1..,.. 
of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the Statutory period of one 
year had not lapsed since the date of marriage, (3) even on merits the 
H dlvorce•clec:ree Is based on no evidence, the allegations In the dlvorce·petl· 
MRS. PAYAL JINDAL v. CAPT. JINDAL 
83 
tion being wholly vague, and (4) the High Court acted illegally i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.