The Court allowed the appeal filed by the wife after finding that she was kept in the dark about a 2009 divorce decree.
The Supreme Court recently condoned the delay in a woman’s challenge to an ex-parte divorce decree, noting that she had remained unaware of both the divorce proceedings and the decree for almost ten years.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria held that the delay could not be attributed to her when she was allegedly never informed of the decree passed against her. Consequently, the Court revived her appeal and reopened the issue of the legal validity of the ex-parte divorce decree granted in 2009.
The case arose from an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2009.
The wife argued that the decree was issued without proper service of summons and in clear violation of the mandatory procedure laid down under Order V Rules 17 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rules 51 and 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Rules, 1961.
She maintained that she had no knowledge of either the divorce proceedings or the decree. Despite the decree, the husband allegedly continued to visit her and remain in contact for several years, thereby concealing the existence of the divorce and preventing her from discovering it for almost a decade.
She asserted that she became aware of the ex-parte divorce decree passed in 2009 only in 2019.
Upon acquiring this knowledge, she immediately approached the trial court by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex-parte decree set aside. Since the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, she also sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Upon considering the material on record, the trial court accepted the wife’s explanation, condoned the delay, and allowed her application. It found that the circumstances justified interference, particularly in light of the allegation that summons had not been duly served and that the wife had approached the court promptly after gaining knowledge of the decree.
The husband challenged this order before the High Court, which, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the trial court’s reasoned order condoning the delay, thereby shutting out the wife’s challenge to the ex-parte divorce decree.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s interference, the wife approached the Supreme Court.
The central question before the apex court was whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s order condoning a substantial delay, particularly when the wife had alleged that the ex-parte decree itself was founded on defective service of summons.
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal and condoned the delay of nearly ten years, observing that the explanation offered by the wife could not have been brushed aside lightly and that the trial court had passed a reasoned order after duly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, it held that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction in interfering with the order.
