Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

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