SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Priyanka Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Prasad - Respondent
F.A. No.113 of 2026
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shyam Narsaria, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sharad Kaushal, Advocate

Courts must ensure strict compliance with procedural norms for serving notice to secure a party's appearance before proceeding ex-parte. Procedural law serves as a handmaid of justice; therefore, courts must avoid mechanical approaches and prioritize substantial fairness over technical defaults in marital disputes.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7, 18, 19; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V.

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate Court is empowered to review both questions of law and fact, reappraising evidence to arrive at independent conclusions. Procedure - Service of Notice - Courts must exhaust all mandated procedural measures, including substituted service, to secure a party's appearance before passing an ex-parte order. Substantial Justice - Procedural law is the handmaid of justice; technical or procedural oversights must not obstruct the determination of substantial rights or the discovery of truth. Restitution of Conjugal Rights - The burden of proof regarding reasonable excuse for withdrawing from cohabitation rests on the party who has withdrawn; however, an ex-parte decree is invalid if the court fails to ensure proper procedural service. (Paras 23-25, 30-37, 45-50)

Facts of the case:
A petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed, leading to an ex-parte decree by the lower court. The aggrieved spouse challenged this decision, claiming that no notice was properly served and that the trial court failed to follow required procedural mandates to secure their appearance before finalizing the matter ex-parte.

Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to record satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of notice and bypassed established procedures for serving summons. Consequently, the ex-parte proceedings were found to be premature and inconsistent with the objective of providing a fair opportunity to defend.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the lower court erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper procedural compliance for service of summons and whether the failure to exhaust available procedural steps amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural norms are designed to assist the realization of justice; thus, a court must strictly adhere to the requirements for securing personal appearance. An ex-parte decision rendered without ensuring valid service or attempting required remedial modes of service constitutes a procedural failure and warrants setting aside the decree.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned ex-parte judgment set aside and suit restored for joint trial with related pending litigation.

Table of Content
1. summary of matrimonial history and procedural history of the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. parties' contentions regarding the validity of the ex-parte proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. appellate jurisdiction in reviewing trial court's procedural decisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. ensuring fairness and due process in service of notice requirements. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. statutory requirements and burden of proof for restitution of conjugal rights. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. critique of the trial court's failure to ensure proper service of notice. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. remand of the suit for merit-based adjudication and consolidation of proceedings. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order/judgment dated 06.01.2025 and Decree dated 13.01.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 385 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the said Suit filed by the Respondent-husband under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.11.2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Ranchi. After solemnization of marriage the Appellant- wife came to her matrimonial home and started leading conjugal life with Respondent-husband and out of wed- lock a female child, namely, Aanya Sahu was born on 08.11.2009, who is at present about 14 years old and pursuing her studies at Loretto Convent, Doranda, Ranchi in Class-IX.

3. The respondent-husband belongs to a well reputed family and he has his own house at Indrapuri, Road No. 1. Ratu Road, Ranchi. After the death of his father only the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband, the daughter and old mother of the respondent herein remained in the family. After marriage the respondent- husband always tried to fulfill the demands of the appellant-wife and tried his best to maintain his family members and after marriage conjugal life of the appellant and the respondent was going on smoothly and peacefully, but after birth of the daughter, behaviour of appellant-wife suddenly changed which led to mismatch of temperament of the appellant and the respondent.

4. In the meantime, the appellant-wife completed her Beautician course in which the respondent-husband incurred more than Rupees One (01) Lakh in the year 2018. Thereafter, the appellant-wife started neglecting the respondent husband, her daughter and her old mother and she used to keep herself busy with her clients and some other persons.

5. The respondent-husband and his family members suggested the appellant-wife for second baby but she did not agree and with a view to leave her matrimonial home the appellant herein intentionally and knowingly started quarrelling with the respondent- husband and and left her matrimonial home along with the daughter on 18.02.2021 at about 9.00 P.M. along with all her belongings and jewelleries and other valuable articles by calling her mother and sister and she went to her paternal home and since then the appellant is residing there without any cogent reason and on her own will and desire.

6. The respondent-husband approached the appellant several time and requested her to return back to her matrimonial home and resume conjugal life with him but she did not pay any heed and expressed her desire to take divorce from him.

7. On 17.01.2023, appellant-wife put several terms and conditions before the petitioner/respondent husband for leading conjugal life with the petitioner/respondent husband. The respondent-husband also prepared counter agreement through which he expressed his desire that he is stil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top