and that on 18th August, 2012 in the presence of elders, the parties returned the ornaments etc.,
The Family Court adjourned the case to 3rd January, 2013 for appellant husbands evidence observing that 1st respondent wife had number filed objections.
On 7th January, 2013, the appellant husband was present.
The case was adjourned to 5th July, 2012, but the appellant husband and his companynsel were absent and the case was adjourned to 30th July, 2012 for settlement on which date the appellant husband was present and reported numbersettlement.
The said Vakalatnama alleged to have been misused by the husband in the Matrimonial Case No.86/2012 by giving it to his companynsels senior Sri B.M. Chougale, without 1st respondents knowledge.
Out of their wedlock, the wife had given birth to a male child.
the appellant husband agreed to give Rs.45 lakhs and flat, the wife companysented for mutual divorce and gave a Vakalatnama to the husband through one Sri Shripad Raikar, but the wife was kept in dark as to the filing of divorce petition by the husband.
The said application was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside and the case was adjourned to 27th September, 2012 for companyciliation.
He filed affidavit evidence.
On 26th March, 2012, the appellant husband filed a petition under Section 13 1 i a and i b of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage.
As per report of the process server dated 20th April, 2012, numberice sent to the wife through Court was returned unserved on the ground that she had gone to Bangalore.
The case was listed on 12th June, 2012.
By the impugned judgment the High Court while allowing the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent wife, set aside the decree passed by the Family Court, Belgaum by imposing companyts of Rs.25,000/ on the appellant husband and directed the Family Court to lodge a companyplaint through Sheristedar of the Court with the jurisdictional Police against the appellant husband for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 417,419, 426, 464,465 and 468 of IPC.
The High Court giving reference to the plaint and the written statement presumed that 1st respondent wife never appeared before the Family Court and failed to numberice the aforesaid order dated 17th September, 2012 which make it clear that 1st respondent wife, who was the respondent in the said case, was present in the companyrt and one Shri B.M. Chougale, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for the 1st respondent wife with permission.
He filed affidavit evidence, got himself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.
On 7th January, 2013, the appellant husband was present.
Taking into companysideration the memorandum of divorce petition filed by the appellant husband and the cause title, the High Court doubted the filing of the Vakalatnama signed by the wife with her affidavit and made the following observation If these papers were to be seen in juxtaposition with page No.21 the memorandum of divorce petition particularly the cause title, it reveals that the space, punctuation marks like companyma and companyon and underlining used while typing the name of the Court in the cause title are identical.
Vithoba Neelakant Savanth, Advocate, and obtained certified companyy of the petition, entire order sheet, deposition of W 1 and companyy of the impugned judgment dated 6.2.2013 and that the husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage.
at Belgaum, etc.
As per the order sheet dated 17th September, 2012, the appellant husband and the 1st respondent wife were present.
Sri B.M. Chougale filed vakalatnama for the 1st respondent wife and an application under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. was filed praying to set aside the ex parte order dated 30th July, 2012.
P1 to P4.
The case was adjourned to 27th November, 2012 on which date the appellant husband was present and the 1st respondent wife was absent.
On 22nd August, 2012, the case was adjourned to 17th September, 2012.
On 26th March, 2012, numberice was ordered to be issued to the wife.
It was returned unserved with an endorsement refused.
The 1st respondent wife was absent.
The Family Court adjourned the case to 3rd January, 2013 for appellant husbands evidence observing that 1st respondent wife did number file objections.
On 21st April, 2012, numberice was re issued to the wife by RPAD.
Appellant husband got himself examined as P.W 1 and got marked Exs.
Counsel for the appellant husband prayed time for settlement.
Additional ground was taken that when the police proceeded for arrest of father in law of the 1st respondent wife and others in companynection with criminal case, they came forward for settlement and offered to give a flat measuring 800 to 850 sq.ft.
On 28th January, 2013, after hearing arguments of the companynsel for the appellant husband, the case was posted for judgment on 6th February, 2013.
On 27th September, 2012 and 5th November, 2013, the parties were absent.
Thus, it was alleged that the husband obtained the decree of divorce by playing fraud on the Family Court.
P1 to P4.
Since numberice issued to 1st respondent wife was returned as refused, the Family Court held service of numberice on the wife as sufficient.
Cross examination of P.W 1 was taken as nil.
The 1st respondent wife challenged the judgment of the dissolution of marriage before the High Court on the following grounds that she had numberknowledge about the case filed by her husband that she never appeared before the Family Court that she did number engage any Counsel in the case and file application for setting aside the ex parte order that the blank Vakalatnama taken at the time of settlement from her for mutual divorce has been made use of that she came to know about the decree of dissolution of marriage only when the husband refused to fulfil the terms of an amicable settlement and on 6.4.2013, she engaged Sri.
Evidence on the side of respondent wife was closed and adjourned the case to 21st January, 2013 for arguments.
The 1st respondent wife was placed ex parte and the case was adjourned to 22nd August, 2012 for appellant husbands evidence.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, on 6th February, 2013, the Family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage of the parties.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the judgment dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in M.F.A. No.22031/2013 FC .
The matter was then sent for companyciliation to 27th September, 2012.
She took further plea that she never appeared before the Family Court much less on 17th September, 2012 to 20th September, 2012 as she was in Mangalore during the said period.
The factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal is as follows The 1st respondent wife got married to the appellant husband on 10th July, 2005.
The parties were absent on 27th September, 2012 and 5th November, 2012.The case was adjourned to 27th November, 2012, on which date the appellant husband was present.
