TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF CASES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
ISSUES FRAMED
SUMMARY OF AGRUMENTS
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
PRAYER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 The Constitution of India ,1950

 The Hindu Marriage Act,1955
 Civil Procedure Code ,1908.
 The Indian Evidence Act,1872
 BOOKS REFERRED
1. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955(Bare Act).
2. Civil Procedure Code 1908(C.K.Talkwani).
3. The Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Bare Act).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 HC High Court
 SC Supreme Court
 Sec. Section
 HMA Hindu Marriage Act
 AIR All India Report
 Art. Article
 Vs. Versus
 i.e That is
 Vol. Volume
 SCC Supreme Court Cases
 Hon’ble Honourable
 SCR Supreme Court Weekly Report

LIST OF CASES
1. Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava, (1967) 1 SCR 864.
2. Ranibhagwan vs. J.W. Bose(1903) 30 IA 249.
3. Chandershekhar vs. Kunandaivelu , AIR1963 SC 185.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Under Article 136 of Constitution of India Supreme Court has the competent jurisdiction to
hold the matter.
Article 136 of The Constitution Of India 1950
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr Sundar and Miss Saundarya married on 15th June 2006. Both of Hindu by religion.
They cohabited together for 3 years.
Sundar applied for divorce alleging conversion of Saundarya to a different religion.
Case was filed in the  Hon'ble Family Court. Court considered,Respondent wife refused to
accept summons. Petitioner was granted exparte decree of divorce on 12 Dec 2009.
Sundar remarried Miss Aarti on 14 Jan 2011 and lived together.
Later, Saundarya filed application for condonation of delay on 5 June 2011.An appeal
was also filed before Hon'ble HC of Big Rashtra to set aside the exparte decree.Alleged that
delay was on account of non awareness of proceedings.She contended that she neither converted
nor stayed at the address mentioned in cause title.HC condoned the delay and appeal was
admitted. Meanwhile, Sundar brought to notice of Hon'ble HC that he is married to Aarti. He
categorically denied all allegations of Saundarya.  Hon'ble HC held that Saundarya did not
convert to any religion. Hon'ble HC set aside the exparte decree of divorce .

Later, Mrs Aarti filed SLP before the Hon'ble SC of Gondia. Saundarya and
Sundar are the respondents no.1 and 2 respectively. Aarti contended that she was not
made a party to appeal in  Hon'ble HC and her rights are violated. She alleged that
the Hon'ble HC judgment is not binding on her. She prayed to set aside the judgment of
the Hon'ble HC. She alleged that she is the lawfully wedded wife of Sundar.
Saundarya (Respondent No.1) prayed for dismissal of SLP as her
marriage is still intact with Sundar(Respondent No.2).

Sundar is of the same view as taken by Aarti.

Hon'ble. SC has admitted the SLP and framed the issues in order to adjudicate the
matter.

ISSUES FRAMED
1. Whether the decree of divorce passed by hon’ble Family Court is valid or not
OPA?

2. Whether the Appellant has no locus standii to file and maintain the present
petition OPR?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the decree of divorce passed by hon’ble Family Court is valid or not
OPA?

That the judgment passed by Hon'ble Family Court was unnatural, without
following Audi alteram partem. The Exparte judgment passed against Mrs
Saundarya was unjustified,unreasonable and not binding on her.That the
allegation of conversion of religion by the Respondent No.1(Mrs Saundarya) as
alleged by the husband (Respondent No.2) was wrong. There was the malafide
intention of Respondent No.2 -- Mr Sundar for obtaining Exparte judgment and
decree from the Hon'ble Family Court. The Respondent No.2 has concealed the
factum of first marriage with the respondent no.1 from appealent .

2. Whether the Appellant has no locus standii to file and maintain the present
petition OPR?

That the SLP filed by Appelant is not maintanable . The Appelant has no Locus Standii to file
the present petition as it was the respondent no.2 who was aggrieved against the judgment
of Hon'ble HC.
Section 44 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or
incompetency of Court, may be proved.—Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that
any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been
proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was
obtained by fraud or collusion.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1. Whether the decree of divorce passed by hon’ble Family Court is valid or not
OPA?
In this case the respondent does not converted her religion because conditions of
conversion of religion are not fulfilled and conversion of religion is a ground of judicial
separation not for divorce under HMA there are two requirements for conversion of
religion;
1. If the respondent has ceased to be a hindu.
2. Has converted to another religion
under hindu law the peculiar situation is that a hindu doesnot ceased to be a hindu on his
declaration that he has no faith in hinduism and mere renounciation of hinduism does not
make him ceased to be a hindu

Case; Ranibhagwan vs.J.W. Bose(1903) 30 IA 249.

In this case the court held that if the person may not practice hinduism , he may have no
faith in it ,he may not profess it ,he may lead very unorthodox life so much so as to it beaf
and decry all hindu gods and godesses, he will not ceased to be a hindu.

Case; In another case Chandershekhar vs. Kunandaivelu , AIR1963 SC 185

In this case ceasing to be a hindu is only material in the context of conversion.
Thus, a hindu will ceased to be a hindu he converts to another religion .
 Exparte Decree
Meaning; An Exparte Decree is a decree passed in the absence of respondent.Where the
petioner appears and respondent does not appear when the suit is called out for hearing
and if the respondent is dully served, the court may hear the suit exparte and passed a
decree against him.
Remedies:
The respondent , against whom an exparte decree has been passed has the following
remedies available to him-
1: To apply to the court by which such decree is passed to set it asside:
Order 9,Rule 13; or
2.To prefer an appeal against such decree :
Section96(2) or
3. To apply for review: order 47,rule 1 or
4. To file a suit on the ground of fraud( case –Roopchand vs.Raghuvanshi pvt.ltd, AIR1964
SC 1889
Case: Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava, (1967) 1 SCR 864
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of C.K. Abdul Rehim and R. Narayana
Pisharadi, JJ. while hearing a matrimonial appeal ruled that remarriage by the opposite spouse
during pendency of an application for setting aside ex-parte divorce decree would not render
such application as infructuous. 

The appellant-husband was granted an ex-parte divorce decree against which the respondent-
wife filed an application to set aside the said decree along with an application for condonation of
delay of 48 days. By that time, the appellant had married another woman. Respondent’s
submission before the Family Court was that she had delivered a premature baby through
cesarean operation during the hearing of case due to which she could not enter her appearance
before the court. Appellant’s contention was that he had remarried after the grant of divorce
decree and therefore the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree had become infructuous.
The Family Court allowed respondent’s applications and set aside the divorce decree, against
which order the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 

The High Court refused to interfere with the findings of fact of Family Court and noted that the
appellant had remarried after receiving notice in the application for setting aside the divorce
decree and during the pendency of that application. Relying on the dictum of Apex Court
in Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava, (1967) 1 SCR 864 the court held
that remarriage of a spouse who obtained ex-parte divorce decree would not render the
application filed by opposite spouse for setting aside the ex-parte decree, as infructuous and the
said application must be considered on its own merits notwithstanding the remarriage. However,
Family Court’s observation that remarriage by appellant could amount to bigamy, was dismissed
as unwarranted. Thus, the instant appeal was dismissed. [Denny Pazhoor v. Greeta Sunitha
Vincent,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3921, decided on 17-10-2018]
 PRAYER
That the present petition is liable to be dismissed and the same may kindly be dismissed.