The right to a fair hearing must be upheld in legal proceedings; ex-parte decrees are void if due process and opportunities to defend are denied.

ORDER :

1. Appeal herein is directed against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Family Court No.1, Bikaner whereby the marriage between appellant – wife and the respondent – husband was dissolved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The respondent/husband of the appellant, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Notices were issued to the appellant on 15.03.2023. Thereafter, upon hearing only the counsel for the respondent and in the absence of the appellant, the learned Trial Court proceed ex parte to allow the petition. Thus an ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage was passed vide judgment dated 05.03.2024.

3. In the aforesaid factual background, we have heard the rival contentions and perused the case record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Family Court has grossly erred in passing the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024 without properly appreciating the material available on record and, therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law, thereby committing material irregularity.

4.1. He submits that from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024, read with the pleadings and documents on record, it is evident that the learned Family Court proceeded in a highly hasty manner without appreciating the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record. He contends that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the issues involved, the learned Family Court ought to have considered the reply filed by the appellant and the averments made therein in their true and proper perspective.

4.2. Learned Counsel further argued that the appellant had remained present before the learned Family Court on every date of hearing, except on 01.02.2024, when she was unable to appear due to illness and even her counsel could not appear. He contends that instead of granting one reasonable opportunity, the learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant in a hasty manner, which is evident from the order sheets. He submits that after proceeding ex parte on 01.02.2024, the matter was posted on 16.02.2024, on which date certain documents were produced by the respondent and were taken on record without any formal application and without obtaining leave of the Court.

4.3. He further contends that thereafter the matter was posted on 21.02.2024, when statements of witnesses were recorded without affording any opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant, and the matter was straightaway posted for final arguments on 05.03.2024. He submits that the manner in which the learned Family Court conducted the trial clearly reflects arbitrariness, undue haste, and non-adherence to due process of law. He contends that the impugned judgment and decree have been passed with a pre-occupied mind and in violation of settled principles of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained.

4.4. Learned Counsel further argued that the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that from a bare perusal of the said provision and the material on record, it is evident that the respondent utterly failed to prove the allegations made in the petition. He submits that no concrete evidence whatsoever was led by the respondent in support of his allegations and that the allegations are false, baseless, and concocted, as clearly demonstrated in the reply filed by the appellant. He contends that the learned Family Cour