Holding

The High Court erred in summarily dismissing the appeal; the ex‑parte divorce decree must be set aside and the case remanded for fresh trial in compliance with Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Summary

Balwinder Kaur married Hardeep Singh under Sikh rites and later filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The husband did not appear, and the District Judge granted an ex‑parte decree of divorce. The wife appealed to the High Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that her husband had fraudulently obtained her signature and that she never intended to seek divorce. The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal, holding that the remedy lay with the civil court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without examining whether the requirements of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act were satisfied and without exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Consequently, the ex‑parte decree and the High Court’s order were set aside and the matter remanded to the District Judge for a fresh trial in accordance with the law.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could summarily dismiss an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act without first ensuring compliance with Section 23 requirements.
Whether an ex‑parte divorce decree can be set aside on the ground of alleged fraud and non‑fulfilment of the statutory duty to attempt reconciliation.
Whether the High Court failed to exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 227
Family Courts Act, 1984
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 23, s. 28, s. 9

Subjects

divorceex‑parte decreefraudHindu Marriage ActSection 23Section 28superintendenceArticle 227reconciliationfamily law

Judgment

A BALWINDER KAUR
v.
HARDEEP SINGH

NOVEMBER 18, 1997

B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Hindu Law :

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .: Sections 9, 13, 23 and 28-Divorce
C proceedings initiated by wife-Non-appearance of husband-Ex-parte divorce
decree granted-Appeal by wife before High Court alleging ji-aud committed
by husband in getting her signature on the divorce petition and that she.
never intended to seek divorce-Summarily dismissal by High Court-On
appeal, Held, High Court dismissed the appeal without satisfYing itself that
D the requirements of law have been satisfied-Failure to exercise power of
Superintendence under Article 227-Divorce decree set aside-Matter
remanded to trial Court.

Marriage betwren the appellant and respondent was solemnised as per
Sikh rites. After some time differences cropped up between the parties and
E appellant-wife lodged a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police
alleging that her husband was harassing her. Subsequently a compromise
was arrived at between the parties with the help of some respectable persons.
Thereafter respondent filed a petition against the appellant under sec. 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was
F subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant-wife filed a divorce petition
before the District Judge on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Respondent
did not appear and the divorce proceedings went ex-pa rte. An ex-parte decree
of divorce was granted by the District Judge.

The appellant-wife preferred an appeal before the High Court under
G section 28 of the Act on the ground that fraud was perpetrated upon her by
her husband in getting her signatures on the divorce petition and in bringing
her to court for recording her statement and she never intended to seek
divorce from her husband. The said appeal was summarily dismissed by the
High Court holding that the remedy lies with trial court. Hence the present
H appeal
202
BALWINDER KAUR v. HARDEEP SINGH 203
Allowing the appeal, this Court. A
HELD: I.I. The High Court erred in summarily dismissing the appeal
without satisfying itself that the requirements of law had been satisfied.
Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of District
Judge are set aside. 1210-D; 211-DI
B
1.2. Under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it was
mandatory for all the Courts tryin~ matrimonial cases before granting
decree of divorce, whether defended or not, to satisfy itself (I) if the grounds
for claiming relief exist and the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or
her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and (2) the C
petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned
the act or acts, complained of, or when the ground of the petition is cruelty
the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty. 1210cD-EI

1.3. A duty is also cast on the Court wherever it is possible on the D
circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a
reconciliation between the parties under sub-section (3) of Sec. 23 of the Act.
The Court can even refer the matter to any persons named by the parties
for the purpose of reconciliation and to adjourn the matter for that purpose.
The Judgement of the District Judge is silent as to whether he took into
consideration all that is mentioned in section 23 of the Act. 1210-F-Gl E

1.4. Merely because the proceeding were ex-parte the Court cannot be
a silent spectator and it should itself endeavour to find out the truth by
putting questions to the witnesses and eliciting answers from them. If a party
to defeat the provisions of sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 23 of the Act, F
remains ex-parte, the Court can in such a situation require the personal
presence of the parties. j210-G-H; 211-Al

2. In the instant case, the High Court failed to exercise its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court G
should have seen if the proceedings before the District Judge were in
accordance with the procedure prescribed and as per the law :ipplicable. To
direct the appellant to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree of
divorce on the ground of fraud otherwise is hardly a solution to the case. In
the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the District Judge for
trial of the case afresh. 1211-B-CI H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
'.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7771 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.96 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in F.A.O. No. 139of1996.

Nidhesh Gupta and Ms. Minakshi Vij for the Appellant.
B
A.V. Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli and Atul Shanna for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA. J. Leave granted.
c Appellant-wife is in appeal against the judgment dated September 27,
1996 of the Division Hench of Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily
dismissing her appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .,
(for short 'the Act'). Appellant had filed this appeal against the judgment and
decree dated December 4, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Patiala in her
D own petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking divorce from her husband
the respondent herein, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Appellant
had alleged that fraud was perpetrated upon her by her husband in filing the
petition for divorce which she said she never intended to file and never
sought divorce from her husband. In the proceeding before the District Judge
E appellant appeared to have examined herself and also one Dalip Singh·who
claimed to be her maternal uncle which the appellant has denied. An exparte
decree of divorce was granted by the District Judge, Patiala on the petition
of the appellant. Appellant says when she became aware of the decree of
divorce she moved the High Court in appeal which appeal, as noted above,
was dismissed by the following order:
F
"Neither any ground for condoning lhe delay of 263 days is made out
nor there is any merit in the appeal. It is the applicant-appellant who
filed a petition for divorce under Section I 3 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. If any fraud has been practised on the applicant, the present
appeal is not the appropriate remedy. The remedy lies with the Civil
G Court.

The application as well as the appeal is dismissed ."

The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Sikh
rites on February 18.199 I at Sangrur, tehsil and district Patiala in the State of
H Punjab .. After sometime it appears differences arose between the parties.
BAL WINDER KAUR v. HARDEEP SINGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 205
Appellant on May 22, 1995 lodged complaint with the Senior Superintendent A
of Police complaining harassment by the respondent in connivance with his
parents. She said her husband was having illicit relations with the wife of his
elder brother and that her parents.,in-law and brothers-in-law were hatching
a conspiracy to kill her in order to get her husband married for a second time.
She complained that for the last six months she was living with her parents B
because of the ill-treatment meted out to her and that all the persons named
in the complaint were not permitting her to live in peace. There is an entry
in the Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala dated July I 0, 1995 where
compromise between. the partie~ has been recorded. Reporting of the
compromise was made by the respondent himself who was accompanied with
various respectable persons whose names are recorded as under: c
"Sh Diwan Singh S/o Daudagar Singh Rio H.NO. 920 Gurbax Colony,
Patiala, Shri Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch village Pillap Maghali, Sh.
Sukhdev Singh Sarpanch Mando P.S, Ghanour, Sharan Singh Member
Panchayat village, Alipur Raian, Jamail Singh S/o. Sh. Arjan Singh
Rio Rampur, Bagh Singh Nambardar Village Ghaggar Sarai, Baldev D
Singh Nambardar Village : Chamaru."

The report further records that the compromise has been accorded
between the parties with the help of the aforesaid persons after lodging of
the complaint by the appellant against her husband when she felt annoyed.
It was also reported that from that-day onwards both parties will live separately E
from other members of the family and that respondent would not unduly
cause hardship to the appellant. Since the complaint by the appellant had
been addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police her statement was
separately recorded on July 21, 1995 withdrawing the complaint when she
made the following statement: F
"Statement of Sml. Ba/winder Kaur wlo Shri Hardeep Singh Dlo
Shri Tirath Singh Rio Kasturba Road, Rajpura

Stated that I am the resident of the address given above. I got
married to Hardeep Singh on I 8.2.91. I had a family problem with my G
husband Hardeep Singh and-my in-laws family and because of this
problem I had gone to the house of my mother and father at Samour
because of which I gave this application. Both the parties with the aid
and help of the respectable persons and the Panchayat have ·arrive<l
at a settlement. I have agreed to this settlement without any fear or
pressure from any quarter. I agree to the settlement got done by the H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Panchayat. Now I do not want any action on the complaints given by
me. Now I live separately from my in-laws house.

Sd/-
(BALWINDER KAUR)
W/o Hardeep Singh d/o
B Tirath Singh
Rio Kasturba Road,
Rajpura
21.7.95"
On July 4, 1995 respondent had filed a petition against the appellant,
C his wife, under Section 9 of the Act restitution of conjugal rights in the court
of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rajpura. This petition was withdrawn on
February 14, 1996. The following is the record of proceeding on that day:

"14.2.1996-Present:-Counsel for the plaintiff.

D Counsel for the plaintiff has made statement that he does not
want to proceed with this case. So in view of the statement of counsel
for the plaintiff the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn. File
be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced Sd/-
E Date. 14.2.96 Civil Judge Junior
Division, Rajpura"

Appellant submitted that service on her in this petition filed by her
husband under Section 9 of the Act was wrongly got obtained. However, it
F is not necessary for us to go into all the details at this stage.

The petition for divorce filed by the appellant out of which this
proceeding has arisen was instituted on September 4, 1995. We have gone
through the petition for divorce. Apart from the date of the marriage between
G the parties the petition singularly lacks in better particulars though the petition
is based on the alleged acts of cruelty and desertion. Respondent did not
appear and the proceeding was exparte against him. Statement of the appellant
'
was recorded on November 22, 1995 and that of her solitary witness also on
the same day. The judgment of the learned District Judge allowing the petition
is dated December 4, 1995. The judgment merely reproduces what the appellant
H had stated in the petition for divorce in general terms and the fact that she
BALWINDERKAUR v. HARDEEP SINGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 207

- /
was an illiterate person and it proceeds as under :

"Respondent Hardeep Singh did not turn up to contest the petition
inspite of his service and therefore, he was proceeded exparte.
A

I have recorded exparte proof of the petitioner. Balwinder Kaur
petitioner appeared as AW I and she examined Dalip Singh her maternal B
uncle.

Petitioner while appearing as AW I supported her allegations
made in the petition while Dalip Singh A W2 her maternal uncle
corroborated her. Both of them have stated that the respondent used
/ to treat her with cruelty during her stay with him and deserted her for C
a continuous period of more than two years.

In view of the exparte proof of the petitioner, I am satisfied that
the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted her for
a continuous period of more than two years before the filing of the
petition. Resultantly, I accept this petition and pass an exparte decree D
of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent
dissolving their marriage with immediate effect.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced.
E
4.12.1995 Sd/-District Judge Patiala.

Appellant has alleged fraud by her husband in getting her signatures
on the petition for divorce and then bringing her to court to record her
statement. Her case is she was unaware of what was happening and she in
fact was duped in signing the petition and then appearing in the court as a F
witness. She said she never wanted divorce. During the coµrse of hearing in
this appeal, we enquired from learned counsel for the respondent if the
respondent himself at any time wanted divorce and the reply was in the
negative. The question then arises as to why the respondent allowed the
proceeding to go ex-parte. There is no mention of the complaint filed by the G
appellant before the Senior Superirttendent of Police and recording of the
compromise between the parties and her own statement in the police on July
2·1, 1995. If the matter had been settled between the parties in July 1995 one
may ask a question as to what was the reason for the appellant to file a
petition for divorce within six weeks of the compromise. The conduct of the
respondent in proceeding with the petition filed by him for restitution of H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A conjugal rights is also not understandabl~.
A petition for divorce is not like any other c.ommercial suit. A divorce
-
not only affects the parties, their children, if any, and their families but the
society also feels its reverberations. Stress should always be on preserving
the institution of marriage. That is the requirement of law. One may refer to
B the Objects and Reasons which led to setting up of Family Courts under the
Family Courts Act, 1984. For the purpose of settlement of family disputes
emphasis is "laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results" and
eliminating adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence. These further
note :
c "The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that
in dealing with disputes concerning the family the court ought to
adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary
civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at
settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil
D Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to
be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the
family. However, not much use has been made by the courts in
adopting this conciliatory procedure and the courts continue to deal
with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the
same advisory approach prevails."
E
It is now obligatory on the part of the Family Court to endeavour, in
the first instance to effect a reconciliation or settlement between the parties
to a Family dispute. It will be useful to note the qualifications and the method
of selection of a Family Court Judge. That will be sub-sections (3) and (4) of
the Section 4 of the Family Courts Act :
F
"(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge unless
he-

(a) has for at least seven years held a judicial office in India or the
office of a member of a Tribunal or any post under the Union or a
G State requiring special knowledge of law; or

(b) has for at least seven years been an advocate of a High Court or
of two or more such courts in succession; or

(c) possesses such other qualifications as the Central Government
H may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, prescribed.

I
I
BAL WINDER KAUR v. HARDEEP SINGH [D.P. WADHW A, J.] 209
(4) In selecting persons for appointment as Judges,- A
(a) every endeavour shall be made to ensure that persons committed
to the need to protect and preserve the institution of marriage and to
promote the welfare of children and qualified by reason of their
experience and expertise to promote the settlement of disputes by
conciliation and counselling are selected; and B
(b) preference shall be given to women."

Even where the Family Courts are not functio11ing, the objects and
I
principles underlying the constitution of these courts can be kept in view by
the civil courts trying matrimonial causes. c
Under Section 21 of Hindu Marriage Act provi.sions of Code of Civil
Procedure 1908, as far as may be, are applicable but that is subject to other
provisions contained in the Act and to such rules as the High Court may
make in this behalf. Under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act decree of divorce
is appealable. Section 28 of the Act is as under : D
"28. Appeals from decrees and orders.-

(I) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this
Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable
as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil E
jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which
appeal ordinarily lie from the decisions of. the court given in the
exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.

(2) Orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act
under section 25 or section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of sub- F
section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every
such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from
the decisions of the court given in exercise of its original civil
jurisdiction.

(3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of G
costs only.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a
period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order."

This Section 28 may be contrasted with Section 96 of the Code which H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A provides for appeal from original decree, which, in relevant part, is as under:
"96. Appeal from original decree.-(!) Save where otherwise expressly
provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time
being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any
Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear
B appeals from the decisions of such Court.

(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.

(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the
consent of parties."
c Rules of procedures are meant to subserve the cause of justice and not
to frustrate it. In the present case when fraud has been alleged by the wife
in getting the petition for divorce filed through her when she never wanted
a divorce and circumstances showed that what she said was prima facie
probable and further from circumstance of the case hereinafter pointed out,
D the High Court in our opinion was not justified in rejecting the appeal without
satisfying itself that the requirements of law had been satisfied.

Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates the Court before granting
decree for divorce, whether defended or not to satisfy itself (1) ifthe grounds
for claiming relief exist and the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or
E her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and (2) the petitioner
has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act
or acts .complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the
petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty. A duty is also cast
on the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do
consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every
F endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the paties. Under sub-
section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the court can even refer the matter to
any person named by the parties for the purpose of reconciliation and to
adjourn the matter for that purpose. These objectives and principles govern
all courts trying matrimonial matters. The judgment of the District Judge is
G silent if the learned Judge took into consideration all what is mentioned in
Section 23 of the Act. A question also arises can a party dP-feat the provisions
of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act by remaining
ex-parte and the court is helpless in requiring the presence of that party even
if in the circumstances of the case so required. We are of the opinion that
court can in such a situation require the personal presence of the parties: {
H Though the proceedings were ex-parte in the case like this the court cannot
BAL WINDER KAUR v. HARDEEP SINGH [D.P. WADHWA, 1.J. 211

- be a silent spectator and it should itself endeavour to find out the truth by
putting questions to•the witnesses and eliciting answers from them.

In the circumstances aforesaid, the High Court should not have summarily
A

dismissed the appeal. By doing so it has also failed to exercise its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court should
have seen if the proceedings before the District Judge were in accordance B
with the procedure prescribed and as per the law applicable. To direct the
appellant to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree of divorce on the
ground of fraud otherwise is hardly a solution to the case.

As to the correctness otherwise of the allegations made by the appellant C
or the stand taken by the respondent, we do not wish to comment as it might
prejudice the case of either of the parties as we are considering of remanding
matter back to the District Judge for trial of the case afresh.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated
September 27, 1996 of the High Court and as well as that of District Judge D
dated December 4, 1995 are set aside. The matter will go back to the learned
District Judge to try and proceed with the petition in accordance with law.

A copy of this judgement shall be sent to the District Judge, Patiala
immediately and the parties are directed to appear in that court on December
17, 1997. E
The appeliant is entitled to costs which we quantify as Rs. 2,000.

S.V.K.1. Appeallallowed.