Sunita Rani vs Satinder Pal

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, refusing to condone delay in filing an application for review of the order granting divorce u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. An application u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for granting divorce has been filed and the same has been granted on 2.12.1997. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 3.3.1998 alleging that the order of divorce was obtained by her husband by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence and she was illegally detained in the house of her husband and she was released on 25.2.1998 and thereafter she applied for a copy of the order granting divorce dated 2.12.1997 and filed an application for the review of the said order. Since there is a delay in filing application for review, she filed an application for condonation of delay. According to her, the delay occurred as she was kept in illegal confinement by her husband.

The said application for condonation of delay was resisted by her husband contending that the order of divorce was passed in normal routine manner and no fraud, coercion or undue influence has been played either on the Court or upon the applicant and that the application is mala fide one and that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

In support of her allegations, the petitioner-wife filed the affidavit. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case and whether the order of divorce granting divorce is to be reviewed in the application filed for condonation of delay. The delay is not much. The order of divorce was passed on 2.12.1997 and the application was filed on 3.3.1998. So the delay is only of about 60 days. In matrimonial matters and while granting divorce by mutual consent, the Court must satisfy itself that the consent was given voluntarily. The learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, also addressed himself whether there are any grounds to review the order granting divorce, which is not necessary on an application for condonation of the delay. In order to do complete justice, I am of the opinion that the delay of only 52 days in filing an application for review is to be condoned. According to me, the learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Accordingly, I allow the revision petition condoning the delay in filing the review application and direct the learned Addl. District Judge, Mansa, to dispose of the review application filed by the petitioner as early as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on receipt of the notice from the Addl. District Judge who is hereby directed to issue notice to the parties to appear before him on the date fixed by him for further proceedings.