AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 172 wordsMr. Pattanayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife. He submits, being aggrieved by ex-parte judgment dated 25th July, 2023 dissolving the marriage his client preferred appeal within time. He draws attention to order dated 18th May, 2022 to submit, service return on summons to his client would reveal that postal article was incorrectly addressed. Hence, his client had no notice of the civil proceeding.
Appellant on discovery of impugned judgment had dual remedy. She could have approached the family Court under order IX rule 13 in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or preferred appeal on merits. She had chosen to appeal. The appeal has been filed in time. However, her case is one which can only be made under order IX rule 13. In the circumstances, remedy availed by appellant-wife before this Court cannot be granted. Hence, appellant-wife may pursue her remedy for setting aside ex-parte decree on seeking exclusion of time spent in filing and prosecuting the appeal.
With the above, the appeal is disposed of.
…………………………….