Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT UPHOLDS EX PARTE DECREE IN DIVORCE CASE, CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN ORDER V RULE 15 OF THE CPC WERE SATISFIED

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld an ex parte decree and dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court. The appellant, Dr. Kiran Bala, had sought to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in a dissolution of marriage case (Divorce Case) against Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia. The key contention raised by Dr. Kiran Bala was that she was not duly served with the summons. However, the court found no merit in her claim and affirmed the trial court’s decision and conditions mentioned in order v rule 15 of the cpc were satisfied. “The appellant was duly served with the summons, and there was no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial court’s decision to proceed ex parte was justified based on the material on record.”

The High Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, carefully examined the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and scrutinized the facts of the case. The court noted that the summons had been served on Dr. Kiran Bala’s father, who assured the process server that she would appear before the court on the designated date. However, Dr. Kiran Bala failed to make an appearance, leading to the ex parte proceedings and the subsequent decree in favor of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the appeal, stated, “The trial court had made several attempts to serve the summons upon the appellant in person, but she could not be found at her given address. Her father accepted the summons and informed the process server that he would convey the same to the appellant. The conditions mentioned in Order V Rule 15 of the CPC were satisfied, and the trial court was justified in declaring that the appellant had been duly served with the summons.”

The court further noted that the appellant had failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of mental trauma and depression preventing her from being informed about the divorce petition. The court deemed her argument as an afterthought and held that it could not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Date of Decision: 09.02.2023

Dr. Kiran Bala   VS Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia

Latest Legal News