Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    First Appeal Defective No. - 68 of 2017: Aparna v. Gyanendra

    Uploaded by

    Gourav Verma
    1. The appellant was living happily with her husband but he filed for divorce without informing her. 2. Summons were not received by the appellant as they were sent to where she was no longer residing. 3. Notice was published in a newspaper with negligible circulation in the area. The court then granted an ex-parte divorce decree. 4. The appellant later learned of the decree and filed appeals to set aside the ex-parte decree and for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned based on facts in her affidavit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    First Appeal Defective No. - 68 of 2017: Aparna v. Gyanendra

    Uploaded by

    Gourav Verma
    29 views2 pages
    1. The appellant was living happily with her husband but he filed for divorce without informing her. 2. Summons were not received by the appellant as they were sent to where she was no longer residing. 3. Notice was published in a newspaper with negligible circulation in the area. The court then granted an ex-parte divorce decree. 4. The appellant later learned of the decree and filed appeals to set aside the ex-parte decree and for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned based on facts in her affidavit.

    Original Description:

    Law notes

    Original Title

    5bb211d4-ac18-453a-a6a0-e53d6eb6077b

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The appellant was living happily with her husband but he filed for divorce without informing her. 2. Summons were not received by the appellant as they were sent to where she was no longer residing. 3. Notice was published in a newspaper with negligible circulation in the area. The court then granted an ex-parte divorce decree. 4. The appellant later learned of the decree and filed appeals to set aside the ex-parte decree and for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned based on facts in her affidavit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    29 views2 pages

    First Appeal Defective No. - 68 of 2017: Aparna v. Gyanendra

    Uploaded by

    Gourav Verma
    1. The appellant was living happily with her husband but he filed for divorce without informing her. 2. Summons were not received by the appellant as they were sent to where she was no longer residing. 3. Notice was published in a newspaper with negligible circulation in the area. The court then granted an ex-parte divorce decree. 4. The appellant later learned of the decree and filed appeals to set aside the ex-parte decree and for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned based on facts in her affidavit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    www.casemine.

    com

    2017 SCC ONLINE ALL 2348 . 2017 SCC ONLINE ALL 2348 .

    Aparna v. Gyanendra

    Allahabad High Court (Sep 1, 2017)

    CASE NO.
    First Appeal Defective No. - 68 of 2017

    ADVOCATES

    - Vijas Sharma

    Counsel for Appellant:- Ishan Baghel, Ambica Tripathi, Shivanshu Bajpai

    JUDGES

    Devendra Kumar Arora

    Rang Nath Pandey, JJ.

    Summary

    1. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present application, that appellant was living happily

    with her husband (respondent) and he filed a divorce petition before the Family Court Hardoi on 25.2.2014

    without disclosing the same to the appellant.

    2. 4. The application for condonation of delay was opposed by learned Counsel for the respondent and he

    has submitted that the appellant was having every knowledge and when she did not appear in the

    proceedings, a publication was made in "Gramin Sahara" newspaper and later on after hearing and

    examining the entire records, the learned Court has proceeded ex-parte decree of divorce.

    JUDGMENT

    1. Heard learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

    Printed by licensee : Kanwarpal Verma Page 1 of 2


    2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act

    1984.

    3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present application, that appellant was living happily

    with her husband (respondent) and he filed a divorce petition before the Family Court Hardoi on 25.2.2014

    without disclosing the same to the appellant. It is evident from the record that summons were not received

    by the appellant because summons were sent where she was not residing. Thereafter, a publication has

    been made in Gramin Sahara newspaper, which has very negligible circulation in the area and on the

    basis of publication, service has been presumed to be served upon the appellant and an ex-parte decree

    of divorce was obtained by the respondent, whereas when the case was filed, the appellant was residing

    with the respondent and she was subsequently force to leave the house on 7.9.2014 The appellant for the

    first time came to know about the ex-parte decree on 6.1.2017, in the proceedings of maintenance case

    and thereafter on 29.1.2017 an application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C, which has

    registered as Misc. Case No.-2 of 2017 and the same was rejected vide order dated 18.3.2017 and

    thereafter the appellant has filed two appeals, first against the order rejecting the application under Order

    IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C and the second one against the ex-parte decree of divorce.

    4. The application for condonation of delay was opposed by learned Counsel for the respondent and he

    has submitted that the appellant was having every knowledge and when she did not appear in the

    proceedings, a publication was made in Gramin Sahara newspaper and later on after hearing and

    examining the entire records, the learned Court has proceeded ex-parte decree of divorce.

    5. We have examined the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It

    is admitted that the appellant was residing with the respondent till 25.2.2014, when the divorce petition

    was filed. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not able to reply the same and from perusal of the lower

    court's record it is evident that the address of the appellant was shown as resident of Mohalla-Nawabganj

    Kasba and Pargana-Sandi Tehsil Bilgram District Hardoi whereas the appellant on the said date was

    residing with the respondent.

    6. Considering the statement of facts as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the

    application stands allowed.

    7. Delay is condoned.

    You might also like