When court should send copy of decrees of dissolution of marriage to parties by RPAD?

 Before parting with the petition, I deem it

 appropriate to direct the Registrar General of this

 Court to issue a circular to all the Family Courts

 and the District Courts as well as the Courts

 subordinate to the District Courts to the effect that

 the decrees of dissolution of marriage, whether

 passed ex-parte or otherwise, shall be forwarded

 forthwith by registered post A.D. to the respective

 spouses at their permanent address available on



 record, in case he/she is not represented in the


 divorce proceedings through a lawyer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
Writ Petition No.647 of 2008
Petitioner
Sou. Ganga Gautam Gudade
Vs.
Shri Gautam Datta Gudade
Respondent
Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari for petitioner.
Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for respondent.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.
April 16, 2008
Read original judgment here;Click here


1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
Writ Petition No.647 of 2008
Petitioner
Sou. Ganga Gautam Gudade
Vs.
Shri Gautam Datta Gudade
Respondent
Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari for petitioner.
Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for respondent.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.
April 16, 2008
ig
1.
P.C.
Heard Mr.Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel
for the petitioner - wife and Mr.Talkute, the learned
counsel for the respondent - husband.
Rule.
3. Petition is taken up for final hearing
2. 
forthwith.
4.
This petition arises from the order dated
28/11/2007
Judge
application
passed
at
for
by
the
learned
Raigad-Alibaug
condonation
Principal
thereby
of
District
rejecting
delay
which
the
was
registered as Misc. Civil Application No.96 of 2006.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2014 20:54:26 :::
2
The parties were married on 22/5/1997 and
for
No.45
of
dissolution
ex-parte
2005
of
by
the
learned
Alibaug on was sought to be
present petitioner -
belatedly on 
delay.
that
came to
15/7/2006
of 2005
when
filed
therefore,
true copy
on 
the
29/7/2006.
to
i.e. by
four 
be
months
learned
out
counsel
that
28/11/2006,
pointed
in
for
after
he
out
filing
that
the
got
Petition
the
the
a
appeal.
impugned
married
of
was
on
No.155
certified
the
appeal
appeal
thirty
delay
-
of
2005
pointed
passed
19/2/2008.
He
was
about
the
husband
was
was
days
Mr.Talkute,
order
of
and,
a
the
period
respondent
No.155
Marriage
filed
course
there
time
rights
and
a
first
Hindu
for
Misc.
on
petition
the
decree
Thus
the
her
applied
within
23/3/2006.
in
filed
-
passed
conjugal
normal
filed
petitioner
for
of 
ex-parte
In
it
the
condonation
was
of
immediately
of
was
the
9 
restitution
she
required
Section
for
1955
under
by
for
decree
appeared
divorce
Hence
by
of
of
appeal
filed
ex-parte
she
on 
Division
appeal
the
out
know
allowed
decree
an
was
pointed
the
she
Act,
was
was
29/7/2006.
2006
though 
24/2/2006,
but
husband
Senior
said
in
ig
wife
wife
of
It
The
challenged
the
same
Judge
of
Civil
about
No.96
by
The
24/2/2006.
or
Application
filed
marriage.
at 
was
H.M.Petition
5.
on
also
filed
by
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2014 20:54:26 :::
3
on
Marriage
13/9/2005
Act
and
Section 498-A
submitted that
petition
of
was
before
the
Alibaug
and
residing
Dist.
at
Akola
therefore,
of
the divorce
Civil Judge,
remained
Alibaug.
ex-parte
any
to
the
inform
wife.
the
on
On 20/4/2006
on the
wife
absent
been
approach
the
Petition
came
date
to
of
application
of
or
the
for
5/7/2006
ex-parte
by the wife
lower
Appellate
Appellate
condonation
any
was
Court
of
the
same
steps
to
was
was
on
it
decree
of
divorce
the 
lower
passed
the
take
about 
the
away
was 
marriage
2005
Taluka
Kms. 
copy
of
on
furnished
by
a
the
i.e.
know
thus
accepted
decree
No.155
600
passing
husband
and
Doli,
decree
forward
the
24/2/2006
the
Court
to
did
that
next
explanation
the
steps
Nor
wife
ex-parte
least
at
though
24/2/2006,
take 
not
Pimpal
is 
Even
on 
did
village 
which
from 
He,
she
ig
been
Patur, 
under
There is no dispute that the petitioner - wife
has
the
Hindu
filed
learned
copy in time and she was negligent.
the
the
was
aware
did not take steps to apply for the certified true
6.
of
30/12/2005.
wife
at
9
complaint
on
the
Division
Section
another
IPC
pending
Senior
under
wife
the
passed
annulled.
board
appears
that
decree.
ought
Court.
in
and
The
to
have
The
rejecting
delay
is
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2014 20:54:26 :::
4
hypertechnical
and
has
resulted
in
miscarriage
of
justice. This was a fit case to condone the delay
7.
Hence this petition succeeds and the same is
hereby
allowed.
hereby
The
quashed
Application
No.96
filed
by
District
2006
petitioner
order dated 28/11/2007
set 
and
of
the
impugned and Misc. Civil
aside
stands
-
allowed.
wife
be
is
caused in filing the appeal.
Court
forthwith
and
it
The appeal
by the
heard and
of this
Family Courts
registered
shall
be
ig
decided on its own merits as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 31st August 2008.
8.
Rule is made absolute accordingly with no
order as to costs.
9.
Before parting with the petition, I deem it
appropriate
Court
and
to
the
subordinate
the
passed
direct
issue
District
to
Registrar
circular
to
District Courts
registered
permanent
to
of
otherwise,
post
the
well
dissolution
or
their
General
all
as
of
by
the
Courts 
ex-parte
at
a
the
decrees
forthwith
spouses
to
as
the
be
to
address
effect
marriage,
shall
A.D.
the
Courts
that
whether
forwarded
the
available
respective
on

record, in case he/she is not represented in the

divorce proceedings through a lawyer.

Print Page