Your brief reminds us of not so similar but nearly similar Appeal that came to Hon'ble SC this year which is re. below and as far as my advise is concerned I see two angles in your brief;
1. Seek assistance of your existing Adv. and ask him to move set aside Application before concerned Court citing FRAUD and mor eof less quoting re. Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti [Hon’ble SC on 08 Feb 2011] -
Full text of re.-
Where it was held: “The respondent, after the expiry of 4 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree of divorce, moved an application for setting aside the same basically on the grounds that ex-parte decree had been obtained by fraud and collusion with the postman etc., to get the report of refusal and on the ground that she had not been served notice even by substituted service and also on the ground that even subsequent to obtaining decree of divorce the appellant did not disclose the fact of grant of divorce to her during the proceedings of maintenance u/s. 125 of the CrPC - Said application was accompanied by an application u/s. 5 of 1963 Act, for condonation of delay - The trial Court examined the issues involved in the application at length and came to the conclusion that respondent miserably failed to establish the grounds taken by her in the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and dismissed the same - HC allowed appeal filed against said order - Hence, the instant appeal - Whether HC rightly allowed appeal filed by respondent against the order of the tribunal? - Held, an ex-parte decree against a respondent has to be set aside if the party satisfies the Court that summons had not been duly served or he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing - In the instant case, the HC did not deal with the issue of service of summons or as to whether there was 'sufficient cause' for the respondent not to appear before the court at all, nor did it set aside the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court - Hence, the HC had not dealt with these issues in correct perspective - Moreover, it was nobody's case that respondent made any attempt to establish that there had been a fraud or collusion between the appellant and the postman - Impugned order of the HC was set aside - Appeal allowed. “
There are other FRAUD related Judgment of Hon’ble SC which your Adv. might have access to otherwise whistle here someone will pop it for your Adv. (read as to service your request brief before us)
The above is first angle to provide you to-the-point help as many readers command me to do so...............
But mint fresh from Indian countryside there is a usual dadi maas saying;
Allow me to quote her….....
“It is common that a bakari gives ledi after giving milk in the same pot”
So here I go which is hard to change now that it is my court practice and procedure bread and butter so…………..
2. The second angle is why NOW? It has been 6 months since you signed the PAPER (whatever it was told to be as!) I mean you were aware that some activity relating to divorce going on in some Court so it was also your duty to check about the STATUS of those activity with your then Adv. Don't litigants do that and would wait for 6 months to check STATUS of some divorce case before some Court is a inference that needs overriding either by you or by your adv. upon challenging there once you state "GROUNDS" to set aside a ex party decree obtained under FRAUD.
2.2 For your last sentence............If he is found to be guilty of committing FRAUD then he is in big trouble if proper Criminal Law is set to motion and in meanwhile if he got married then your SHARE is protected in terms of seeking ALIMONY (S. 25 HMA or even S. 27 HMA) as concerned Court will protect his second wife who is now legally married to him (if he married now is the infinite possibility chance no person would leave to destiny by choice kar key aab)
BTW., (read as reasoning) the so-called second angle i.e. para 2 was necessary inclusion to put in as my reply even though you may not like reading it but that is what prudent people challenge before Bench hence I think it was necessary inclusion in line of our standard advise here…………rest is your choice how best you can rebut this advise accordingly in Court of Appeal not to me as I am not your case Judge..............