Ex-parte judgments in matrimonial cases must comply with procedural rules, including framing issues and evaluating evidence; failure to do so results in setting aside the decree.

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The Appellant wife before this Court challenges the order dated 29.09.2023 which is alien to a judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 95 of 2009 allowing the petition ex-parte against the Appellant who was the Defendant-Opposite Party in the C.P.

2. Pursuant to our order dated 02.09.2025, both the parties are present in person before the Court, i.e. Pradeep Kumar Beura, Respondent-husband in the marriage and Ruby @ Bishnupriya Beura @ Samal, Appellant-wife in the marriage. This Court took note of the fact that till 02.09.2025 the matter is being adjourned repeatedly for no justifiable cause. After the appeal was placed for consideration, for the first time it was listed on 06.04.2024. On the said date, the following order was passed:

“1. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and prays for liberty to rectify defect by omission in the petition, in Court.

2. Leave is granted for the defect being rectified in Court, to be countersigned by Court Master.

3. List on 15^th April, 2024.”

3. On 15.04.2025 the following order was passed:

“1. Mr. Pradha, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife. He submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 29^th September, 2023 of the Family Court, dismissing the application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 20^th July, 2009, dissolving the marriage. The appeal has been filed in time.

2. Appellant will put in requisites for issuance of notice of appeal. The lower Court record be called for.

3. List on 8^th May, 2024.”

4. The matter was adjourned, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, to 22.04.2025. Again similar order was passed at the instance of the learned counsel for both the parties on 30.06.2025. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the Respondent to 16.07.2025. On 16.07.2025 the learned counsel for both the parties joined to adjourn the matter to 05.08.2025. On 05.08.2025, on being stated by the learned counsel for the parties before us, we have recorded the following order:

“1. It is stated by the learned counsels for the parties that there has been a talk of compromise between the parties to settle the matter amicably.

2. List this matter on 2^nd September, 2025, as prayed for.”

5. Thereafter, again the learned counsel for the parties sought for adjournment on 02.09.2025. However, the following order was passed:

1. The matter is pending since April, 2025. The appellant- wife has challenged the order passed ex-parte judgment against her by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.95 of 2009 and also under challenge by her is the subsequent order dated 29.09.2023 passed in CMA No.89 of 2015, wherein the petition filed by wife-petitioner under Order-9, Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree was also rejected.

Despite pendency of the matter for about five months, no steps have been taken by the learned counsel for the parties and the matter is being repeatedly adjourned. On 05.08.2025, the matter was adjourned at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the purported ground of compromise between the parties.

2. Today, the matter is mentioned at the beginning for adjournment by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradhan and Mr. A.K. Rana, learned counsel for the respondent stating that there would be an out of Court settlement between the parties.

On being asked, what could be the out of Court settlement in the matter, where the wife challenges the ex-parte decree of divorce and order rejecting prayer for restoration of the petition for hear