A Division Bench of Uttrakhand High Court Comprising of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khuble has ruled that Marriage is sacrosanct among Hindus and a divorce order obtained by fraud is liable to be set aside while imposing a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the husband.

The Court noted that "The appellant, by his aforesaid conduct, has gravely undermined the institution of marriage which is sacrosanct amongst the Hindus - the religion to which the parties belong. If he had to obtain a divorce, he should have fairly and squarely separated from his wife before filing the divorce petition, and he should not have been living with her. However, he continued to live with her as her husband even after filing of the divorce petition and obtaining the ex-parte divorce. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the appellant misled his wife, and contrived to obtain her signatures on the summons and get the Process Server’s report to show that she had been served in the divorce proceedings, while she continued to live with the appellant as his wife in complete ignorance of the said developments. If there was any truth in the case of the appellant, he would have produced his children to support his plea that he was not residing with the respondent as her husband throughout the proceedings, and even after obtaining the ex-parte divorce decree."

The Court noted the facts that the marriage between both of them took place on 19.10.1996 and they were living as husband and wife under the same roof in village Maanpur. While living together husband filed a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(is) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty before the Family Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal. Both of them had three children out of the marriage. The petition for divorce was filed in 2013. In the divorce petition wife was treated to be served with a summons on the basis of the process Server's report. She did not appear and contest the divorce proceedings and she was proceeded ex-parte on 12.08.2013 and a decree of divorce was passed on 30.10.2021.

It was noted by the bench that during the pendency they were residing under one roof but the husband did not inform her about this proceeding. The address of both parties is also shown to be the same even in the appeal.

Case details:-

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 331 OF 2022
26th SEPTEMBER, 2022

Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi …… Appellant

and

Lajji Devi …… Respondent 

Read the Complete Order on the following link:-

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfBWT2mW3Gz4WvRjxulXMJuLtou8ZukXo3%2Btbn4yRNwu8&caseno=AO/331/2022&cCode=1&appFlag=