Punit Ahluwalia vs Harpreet Kaur Ahluwalia

Viney Mittal, J.

The petitioner before this Court is the husband. He had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondentMrs. Harpreet Kaur Ahluwalia.

The aforesaid petition had been filed by the husband on May 16, 2003. A notice of the aforesaid petition was issued to the respondentwife by the learned trial Judge for August 14, 2003. The summons were received by the respondentwife on May 31, 2003. The respondent appeared through her counsel on August 14, 2003 and the learned trial Court directed the parties to appear for reconciliation proceedings on September 16, 2003. On the aforesaid date, the parties requested for more time for compromise. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to September 29, 2003. The reconciliation talks failed on the aforesaid date. Thus on September 29, 2003, the learned trial Court adjourned the case to September 30, 2003 and directed the respondent to file her written statement. Accordingly, the respondentwife filed a written statement on September 30, 2003.

Thereafter issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The case was subsequently, adjourned to December 18, 2003 for the evidence of husbandpetitioner. At that stage, the husbandpetitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was claimed by the husbandpetitioner that since the respondentwife had failed to file her written statement in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 30 days from the date of service of summons upon her and had not even filed the aforesaid written statement within the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons, therefore, her defence was liable to be struck off.

The aforesaid application was contested by the respondentwife. It was claimed that the written statement has been filed immediately when the case was adjourned from September 29, 2003 to the next day, i.e. September 30, 2003 and since there was no delay in filing the written statement, therefore, there was no occasion for striking off her defence.

Learned trial Court vide order dated January 14, 2004 had dismissed that aforesaid application filed by the husbandpetitioner.

The husbandpetitioner has now approached this Court through the present petition.

I have heard Sh. A.S. Virk, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

The facts are not in dispute. Various relevant dates on which the proceedings were taken and the details of the aforesaid proceedings have already been noticed by me above.

It is not disputed that the divorce petition was filed by the husband petitioner on May 16, 2003. A notice was issued to the respondentwife for appearance on August 14, 2003. Thus, when the respondentwife herself was required to appear in the Court on August 14, 2003, then the question of filing any written statement prior to the aforesaid date did not arise. On the aforesaid date also, the learned trial Court adjourned the proceedings for reconciliation between the parties in terms of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. It was only when the talks for reconciliation failed on September 29, 2003, that the learned trial Judge directed the respondentwife to file a written statement and the case was adjourned to the next day i.e. September 30, 2003. The written statement was accordingly, filed by the respondentwife on September 30, 2003. It is thus apparent that the respondentwife cannot be faulted at all for delaying the matter in any manner or not filing the written statement in terms of the directions of learned trial Judge.

A perusal of Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, itself shows that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, then the Court may pronounce the judgment against him. However, in the present case, the Court had directed the respondentwife to file written statement only on September 29, 2003 and had adjourned the case for the next day. On the next day itself, the written statement was filed. Thus there is no violation of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure at all by the respondentwife.

There is another aspect of the matter as well. The respondentwife had put in appearance before the learned trial Judge through her counsel on August 14, 2003. The case was adjourned on various dates for reconciliation between the parties. When the written statement was filed by her on September 30, 2003, on the directions of the Court, the issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. No objection was raised by the husbandpetitioner at that stage to the aforesaid filing of the written statement by the respondentwife. The case was adjourned for evidence of the petitionerhusband to December 18, 2003. It was only at that point of time when the husbandpetitioner thought of filing the present application.

I am of the considered view that since no objection was raised by the husbandpetitioner on earlier occasion i.e. August 14, 2003 or on various other dates fixed for reconciliation and even written statement filed by the respondentwife was not objected to by the petitionerhusband on September 30, 2003, then subsequently, his objection to the late filing of the written statement by the respondentwife later on, cannot be entertained. The petitionerhusband apparently shall be taken to have waived any objection with regard to the late filing of the written statement. On that account also, the application filed by the husbandpetitioner was liable to be dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.