Man Obtains Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Fraudulently By 'Misleading' Wife: Uttarakhand High Court Asks Him To Pay ₹50K To Her

The Uttarakhand High Court recently ordered a man to pay ₹50K to his pay after finding that he obtained an ex-parte divorce decree by misleading her. The Court further ordered him to deposit ₹50K with the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

Essentially, the Husband (while living with his wife and keeping her in dark), managed to get an 'ex-parte divorce decree' after obtaining the wife's signature by misrepresenting to her that her signatures are required in relation to some cases. This was done to show before the Court that his wife had been served with divorce proceedings and she 'agreed to them'.  

Taking note of the facts of the case, the Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe opined that the husband, by his conduct, gravely undermined the institution of marriage which is sacrosanct amongst the Hindus.

The Court also observed that 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 the divorce petition and obtaining the ex-parte divorce. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the appellant misled his wife into, 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," the Court further remarked as he imposed 1 total of ₹1 Lakh cost upon him.

The case in brief

The husband moved the High Court with the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act challenging an order of the Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal passed in August 2022, whereby the Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as a second application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree.

The respondent claimed that when she got to know about her husband's relationship with another woman, she confronted him and that is when he told her that he had already obtained a decree of divorce against her. It is only thereafter, that she moved to the family court seeking to set aside the ex-parte divorce decree.

The wife contended that she had not signed the summons (issued by the Court in connection with divorce proceedings) and that her signatures on the summons had been forged by the appellant.

However, the Family Court set aside the ex-parte divorce decree while noting that the signature of the respondent-wife had been obtained by the appellant/husband by misrepresenting to her that her signatures are required in relation to some cases. 

Court's observations

The Court observed that when the hudband moved the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty/wife's matrimonial misconduct, he was living with the respondent as her husband and he continued to live with her even after filing of the petition.

In view of this, the Court noted that there would have been condonation of the alleged matrimonial misconduct of the respondent, as the parties continued to reside under the same roof as husband and wife, even after the filing of the divorce petition and even after obtaining the ex-parte divorce.

Regrding the signature obtained on the summons, the Court observed that the Husband can not get away with his fraudulent conduct by arguing that she herself signed the summons, as the Court noted that even if she did actually sign the summons, he continued to cohabit with his wife by treating his wife all through - before filing the divorce petition; after filing the divorce petition, and; even after obtaining the ex-parte divorce decree.

"The only conclusion that we can draw is that the appellant misled his wife into, 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," the Court further remarked as it dismissed husband's appeal.

Case title - Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi v. Lajji Devi [APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 331 OF 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Order