JUDGMENT
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.
1. Heard both the learned Counsels at length and perused the relevant provision of Order 5, Rule 9 to 19 and also perused the law cited by both the learned Counsel.
2. This revision petition is preferred against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated 1-10-86, by which he accepted the application of non-petitioner Mst. Guddi and set aside the ex parte decree dated 24-8-81.
3. The petitioner filed an application against non-petitioner for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 16-3-1981. Notice was sent to the non-petitioner but she did not appear so an ex parte order was passed on 3-7-1981. Thereafter on 24-8-1981 ex parte decree for divorce was passed against the non-petitioner Mst. Guddi. Then Mst. Guddi submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 10-5-1982 requesting that she had no knowledge about the notice of the divorce application and prayed that the ex parte decree, passed against her, be set aside. The application was accepted and the learned District Judge by the impugned order set aside the ex parte decree. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner Shri Harjeet Singh has come to this Court in revision. The important point to be considered is whether Mst. Guddi was served with the notice of the application filed by petitioner for divorce. In this respect the statements of Mst. Guddi. her father Lal Singh, Process Server, Manphool and witness Lad u Ram in whose presence notice was affixed, are important statements. From reading the statements of all these witnesses and specially the statement of Process Server, it is clear that the notice was sent in the name of Mst. Guddi and she was not found at the address given in the notice. The notice was again sent and it was returned back that Mst. Guddi has gone to Punjab. Again the notice was sent and Mst. Guddi was not found then the notice was affixed on the house of Lal Singh where she was residing. Mst. Guddi, in her statement, has admitted that she was residing with her father Lal Singh at the address given in the application by the petitioner. She has stated that occasionally she used to go to Punjab. But by her statement, it is clear that she was residing permanently at Jhabar, Tehsil Hanuman Garh with her father. Lal Singh father of Mst. Guddi has stated that she resides in Punjab & occasionally comes to his house. Thus the statement of Lal Singh and Mst. Guddi are contradictory and there is no satisfactory proof that Mst. Guddi was permanently residing at that time in Punjab. The fact is clearly established that she was residing with her father Lal Singh in village Jhabar, Tehsil Hanuman Garh at which address the notice was sent. The witness in whose presence the notice was affixed has also corroborated the statement of process server and from his statement also, it is clear that notice was served by affixing it on the house of Lal Singh where Mst. Guddi was residing. After perusing the evidence on this aspect, I am satisfied that the notice was affixed at the house of Lal Singh where Mst. Guddi was residing. Therefore, there was complete compliance of Order 5, Rule 17. Notice was sent twice and Mst. Guddi was not found. All due and reasonable steps were taken but she was not found there and nobody informed that when Mst. Guddi will return from Punjab. So the notice was affixed on the house of Lal Singh where she was residing and, therefore, this was correctly treated as duly served.
4. According to Mst. Guddi she came to know for the first time about this divorce decree on the date when she came to Hanumangarh to attend her case which was filed under section 125 Cr. PC. against the petitioner. Mst. Guddi has also preferred maintenance allowance through an application under section 125 Cr. PC from the petitioner and that application was pending.1 She has not stated in her statement and her father Lal Singh has also not stated in the statement that when they came to Hanumangarh, on which date they were informed by the Advocate that divorce decree has been passed against Mst. Guddi. Who gave this information, no name of the Advocate was mentioned in their statement. There is no affidavit of that Advocate, There is no proof about the date of which Lal Singh and Mst. Guddi were told by that Advocate about the divorce decree, so this is a vague statement. Then Mst. Guddi has stated that she was in Punjab when her father came to Punjab and informed her that decree of divorce has been passed against her. Lal Singh her father gave a contradictory statement. He has not stated that he had been to Punjab and informed Mst. Guddi about divorce. According to Lal Singh he for the first time he came to know about the notice at Hanumangarh when they came to attend the case filed under Section 125 Cr. PC. This contradictory statement is suffcient to discard the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. Whatever evidence adduced by Mst. Guddi is most unsatisfactory unreliable and contradictory and no reliance can be placed on such testimony The evidence on behalf of the petitioner, the statement of process server and the witness in whose presence the notice was affixed at the house of Lal Singh are reliable and trustworty and I see no reason to discard those statements. The learned District Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence correctly.
5. Another aspect which has great bearing in such matters is that after getting the decree of divorce Shri Harjeet petitioner has solemnised second marriage & from that wedding he had one child also. This marriage was solemnised after 3-1/2 months of the passing of the divorce decree. Previously before the amendment in section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act the person cannot marry before one year of the decree of divorce but after this amendment the period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree has been reduced. It means that the limitation for submitting application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is 30 days. It means that after the amendment in Section 15, a person cannot marry within one month of passing the decree but there is no bar if he marries after expiry of the period of limitation i.e. 30 days after getting the divorce decree. In this present case Harjeet Singh married after 3-1/2 months. This marriage is a valid marriage and this subsequent event should have been considered by the learned D strict Judge. He has failed to consider this aspect. When the second marriage is a valid marriage it is in the interest to dismiss the application setting aside the divorce decree. In this regard, I am supported by Champa Prasad Jain v. Smt. Malti Prabha and Anr. AIR 1979 Allahabad 206.
6. Considering all the aspects as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be maintained. The service of the notice of divorce petition of Mst. Guddi was a sufficient service, the service was effected according to Order 5, Rule 17 and there is no irregularity or illegality in this service. Mst. Guddi has failed to satisfy that she had no knowledge about this notice.!*he ex parte decree passed against her was correctly passed and the learned District Judge has erroneoulsly accepted the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC.
7. As a result, the revision petition is accepted. The order of the learned District Judge dt. 1-10-1986 is set aside and the divorce decree passed by the trial Court is maintained. No order as to costs.
