Wife kept in dark about ex-parte divorce decree for 10 years: Supreme Court condones delay

The Supreme Court recently condoned the delay in a plea filed by a woman challenging an ex-parte divorce decree, after noting that she had been kept in the dark about the divorce proceedings and the decree for nearly 10 years.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that the woman could not be penalised for approaching the court late when she was allegedly never informed that a decree had been passed against her.

Hence, it restored her appeal against the ex-parte divorce decree and reopened the issue of whether the decree passed in 2009 was legally sustainable in the first place.

The case arose from an ex-parte decree of divorce granted by a trial court in 2009.

The wife’s case was that the decree was passed without proper service of summons and in clear violation of the mandatory procedure under Order V Rules 17 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as Rules 51 and 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Rules, 1961. According to her, she had no knowledge of the divorce proceedings or the decree itself.

Despite the decree being passed, the husband continued to visit the wife and maintain contact with her for several years. The wife alleged that this conduct concealed the existence of the divorce decree and prevented her from learning about it for almost a decade.

It was only in 2019 that the wife claimed she first became aware that an ex-parte divorce decree had been passed in 2009.

Upon learning about it, she immediately approached the trial court by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. Since the application was filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period, she also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

The trial court examined the material on record and accepted the wife’s explanation. It condoned the delay and allowed her application, taking the view that the circumstances justified interference, particularly given the allegation that summons were never duly served and that the wife had acted promptly once she gained knowledge of the decree.

The husband challenged this order before the High Court. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the trial court’s reasoned order condoning the delay. This effectively shut the door on the wife’s attempt to challenge the ex-parte divorce decree.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s interference, the wife approached the Supreme Court.

The core question before the top court was whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s decision to condone a long delay, especially in a case where the wife claimed that the very foundation of the ex-parte decree was faulty service of summons.

The Court ultimately allowed the appeal and condoned the delay of nearly ten years.

It found that the explanation offered by the wife could not be brushed aside lightly and that the trial court had passed a reasoned order after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

Thus, it held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with that order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

The petitioner (wife) was represented by advocates Shivali Sharma, Priyank Upadhyay, and Anadi Kumar Taylor.