IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial orders must provide clear reasoning to ensure justice and uphold the principles of natural justice; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the original respondent happens to be wife of original petitioner challenging judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Family Court, Kutchh in Family Suit No. 111 of 2016. The parties will be referred as per their original position.

2. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent-husband. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. Short facts of the matter appears to be as under:

3.1 The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 9.12.2000 and they were blessed with a son namely Shivam. As per the case of husband, the wife left the matrimonial home and refused to come back without any reasonable cause. The husband had file a suit being Family Suit No. 111 of 2016 under section 9 of the Act containing inter-alia that without any just cause wife has left her matrimonial house one year prior to filing of Family Suit.

3.2 It appears from the impugned judgment that the wife has contested a suit by filing her objections at Exhibit 11 denying all the allegations made in the suit.

3.3 After framing the issues at Exhibit 12 and after considering the evidence on record, the Family Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 allowed the suit and thereby directed wife to come back at her matrimonial home and fulfill her obligations with the husband.

3.4 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, wife has approached this Court by way of filing present appeal.

4. Submission of appellant

4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-wife would submit that impugned judgment is passed without assigning any reasons more so without appreciating the evidence led by the parties. According to learned advocate for the petitioner without any specific ground, suit filed by the husband was allowed by the Family Court.

4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant would lastly submit that the impugned judgment is non-speaking one and would request this Court to quash and set aside the same and matter may be remanded back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication.

5. Submission of respondent

5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent-husband would submit that there is no infirmity in the judgment by the Family Court and there is no error committed so alleged by the other side in the judgment. He would try to justify the impugned judgment to the extent that when husband is ready to accept wife to fulfill her matrimonial obligations with the husband and to join him at her matrimonial home, which she left without any reason then these Court may not interfere with this order. However, he would fairly accept that no specific reasons are assigned by Family Court, while allowing the application.

5.2 Lastly, he would submit that if this Court is of the opinion that impugned judgment is non-speaking order and no appreciation of evidence having been discussed by the Family Court, then in that case, if this Court would remand the matter back to the Family Court, then suitable direction may be issued to decide the Family Suit within some stipulated time as same was filed in the year 2016.

No other and further submissions are made by the respective ld. Advocates.

6. Points for consideration

6.1 Whether Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is non-speaking order and if so, then whether is it sustainable in law?

7. Appreciation of Submission - Finding

7.1 At the outset, it would require to be observed that impugned judgment which completed in 8 pages wherein up to Page-7, the Family Court has recorded facts and issue involved in the suit, but we are unable to find out reasons which are impressed upon by the Family Court, while allowing application of husband. We would like to reproduce Para-8 of the impugned judgment which is so called reasoning, on the basis of which application of hus