- (1.) His parents advertised for "homely non- medico" bride. Her parents responded. Marriage took place on 24/01/1988 at Noida near Delhi. They hardly lived as husband and wife at pune for about seven months when on 16/08/1988 the husband Filed a petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 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 applicant's house and abused everybody". 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". She vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that she was a homely, vegetarian, non-smoking, teetotaller and faithful housewife. The Family court at Pune proceededex parte and granted divorce-decree by the order dated 30/11/1989. Wife's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Family court on 24/06/1990. The High court by its judgment dated October 10/11, 1990 upheld 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. This appeal by way of special leave is by the wife against the judgments of the courts below.
(2.) During the pendency of the divorce-proceedings before Family court, Pune, the wife filed a petition, on 1/05/1989, before this court seeking transfer of the case from the Family court, Pune to Delhi. This court granted ad interim stay of the proceedings before the Family court, Pune. The stay remained operative till 11/09/1989 when this court dismissed the transfer petition and vacated the stay. There after the husband appeared before the Family court on 15/09/1989 whereas the appellant-wife remained absent. 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. The notices came back with the remarks "not found". The Family court ordered sub- stituted service and a notice was published in the "times of India" New delhi of dated 24/10/1989 asking the wife to appear before the family court on 16/11/1989 or the proceedings would be taken ex parte. On 16/11/1989 the Family court ordered ex parte proceedings. The issues were framed on 21/11/1989, the evidence of the husband was recorded on 25/11/1989 and the judgment was pronounced on 30/11/1989.
(3.) The appellant filed an application dated 18/12/1989 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. She further stated that in October/november, 1989 she had gone to reside with her brother at Delhi. According to her she applied to the Army Authorities claiming maintenance out of her husband's salary. Respondent-husband is an Army officer. The Army authorities sent a letter dated 14/12/1989 to her father wherein it was mentioned that his daughter's application for maintenance allowance could not be entertained because the husband had already obtained a divorce-decree from the court. A copy of the Family court judgment granting divorce-decree to the husband was also annexed to the letter. The appellant claims that for the first time, on or about 14/12/1989, she came to know through her father that the respondent had already been granted an ex parte divorce-decree by the family court. The appellant in her application inter alia stated as under: "The applicant submits that the applicant did not receive any notice/letter/summons or communication from this Hon'ble court's office. Even there was no intimation given by postal authorities and the applicant honestly states that till the receipt of the letter from the Army H. Q. New Delhi, she was not aware of the date of proceeding. The applicant submits, the applicant was under bona tide belief that she will receive a notice from this Hon'ble court. As such and being far from Pune, either in Noida (U. P. ) or at New delhi, it was not possible for her to approach this Hon'ble court for any enquiry since she was also not permitted to appear through the lawyer. . At any rate and in any event, the applicant also did not come across the public notice published in the Times of India, New delhi on 24/10/1989 as stated in the decree. The applicant submits, the applicant had every intention to resist the marriage petition filed by the opponent since the same was absolutely false, frivolous and out and out false, and has been resisted by the applicant by filing written statement, preliminary objections including to approach the Supreme court of India. The intention of the applicant was clear. The applicant submits, the applicant was also advised by her Advocate that she will receive a fresh notice in due course of time after the stay was vacated by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India from this Hon'ble court. The applicant states, she resides at a far long distance from Pune. She was also refused any assistance of lawyer. The applicant has no relation or any representative who can look after her in the present proceeding in pune. It was in these circumstances, the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the marriage petition proceeding no. 561 of 1989 and as such the said decree is required to be set aside. . The applicant states, the applicant is Unable to maintain herself, she has no source of income. . The applicant submits, because of the passing of ex parte decree, she has been refused maintenance allowance. The applicant also prays for granting of maintenance allowance pending final disposal of this application. ";