J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8 -2 -1985 of the District Judge Ambala, whereby the application filed on behalf of the Appellant (wife) for letting aside the ex parte decree dated 1 -3 -1984 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was declined
(2.) MARRIAGE between the parties was solemnized on 9 -12 -1973. On 15 -1 -1983, the Appellant -wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Thereafter, the Respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 4 -3 -1983. In that petition, ex parte decree was obtained on 1 -3 -1984. Application for setting aside the same was filed on behalf of the wife on 20 -3 -1984 alleging that she was never served in the petition and, therefore, the ex -parte decree has been wrongly pasted. That application was contested on behalf of the Respondent -husband. The learned District Judge found that the wife has failed to make out a sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte decree and thus dismissed the same. Efforts were made in this Court for reconciliation between the parties. At one stage, the wife had gone with her husband from the Court itself. Unfortunately, the very next day, it was reported that the Respondent -husband was not willing to take her to his house as agreed in this Court.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the wife had already filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, before the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was moved by the Respondent -husband. Service on the Respondent was effected through publication. Admittedly, the application for setting aside the ex -parte decree was filed within 20 days. Thus, keeping in view the fact that it was a matrimonial dispute and the application was filed within time, the ex parte decree should have been set aside. The only argument raised on behalf of the Respondent is that the Appellant was served personally for 1.6.1983. On that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and therefore, fresh summons was issued through registered post, but she was not served. Ultimately, she was ordered to be served through publication in "Chardikalan" and publication was issued on 22 -1 -1984. According to the learned Counsel, when once the Appellant was served personally for 1 -6 -1983 it was her duty to be present on the next working day as provided in Rule 4 of Chapter 1 -K of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court (Volume 1), which reads as under: - On the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall he deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend Court on that day. Whenever possible the Presiding Officer, should as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed. * * * * * *;