She further stated that in October November, 1989 she had gone to reside with her brother at Delhi.
The Family Court at Pune proceeded ex parte and granted divorce decree by the order dated November 30, 1989.
This Court granted ad interim stay of the proceedings before the Family Court, Pune.
She also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the divorce petition.
The Army Authorities sent a letter dated December 14, 1989 to her father wherein it was mentioned that his daughters application for maintenance allowance companyld number be entertained because the husband had already obtained a divorce decree from the companyrt.
The stay remained operative till September 11, 1989 when this Court dismissed the transfer petition and vacated the stay.
She filed a transfer petition before this Court which was dismissed in September, 1989.
Notices were sent by registered post to the wife on her address at Noida and also at her Delhi address given by her in the proceedings before this Court.
During the pendency of the divorce proceedings before Family Court, Pune, the wife filed a petition, on May 1, 1989, before this Court seeking transfer of the case from the Family Court, Pune to Delhi.
Respondent husband is an Army officer.
This appeal by way of special leave is by the wife against the judgments of the companyrts below.
The numberice came back with the remarks number found.
According to her she applied to the Army Authorities claiming maintenance out of her husbands salary.
The Family Court ordered substituted service and a numberice was published in the Times of India New Delhi of dated October 24.1989 asking the wife to appear before the Family Court on November 16, 1989 or the proceedings would be taken ex parte.
She vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that the she was a homely, vegetarian, number smoking, teetotaller and faithful house wife.
The issues were framed on November 21, 1989, the evidence of the husband was recorded on November 25, 1989 and the judgment was pronounced on November 30, 1989.
On November 16, 1989 the Family Court ordered ex parte proceedings.
From the Judgement and Order dated 11.10.1990 of the Bombay High Court in F.A. No.
Mrs. C.M. Chopra for the Appellant.
The High Court by its judgment dated October 10/11, 1990 unheld the findings of the Family Court with the modification that in place of decree for dissolution of marriage it granted a decree for judicial separation.
A companyy of the Family Court Judgment granting divorce decree to the husband was also annexed to the letter.
They hardly lived as husband and wife at Pune for about seven months when on August 16, 1988 the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Both these numberices were sent by registered post in due companyrse.
The appellant claims that for the first time, on or about December 14, 1989, She came to know through her father that the respondent had already been granted an ex parte divorce decree by the Family Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter the husband appeared before the Family Court on September 15, 1989 whereas the appellant wife remained absent.
The appellant filed an application dated December 18, 1989 for setting aside the ex parte divorce decree wherein she stated that after she was forced to leave her matrimonial home at Pune, she was residing with her parents at Noida.
He further alleged it was found by the applicant that she was working as a model prior to marriage and he found few pictures of the respondent in bikini and semi nude clothes in magazines.
Marriage took place on January 24, 1988 at Noida near Delhi.
2446 of 1991.
Respondent in person.
He alleged she had a habit of smoking and it was found that she was in the habit of drinking and even once came drunk to the applicants house and abused everybody.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. His parents advertised for homely number medico bride.
649 of 1990.
Her parents responded.
