JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By means of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is an ex-parte order and was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant's application for recall of order dated 28.08.2018 (order to proceed ex-parte) was also not taken note of by the court below while passing the judgment under appeal. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, the appellant has filed a case under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act registered as Original Suit No.2656 of 2015 in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. In the said matter, date was fixed, which was in the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant/Smt. Anamika Mishra @ Rani willfully and deliberately did not appear before the court below. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the order sheet of the court concerned. The appellant had knowledge about the case which was to be heard on the date fixed. He further submits that in view of the above said facts, the appellant has no right to challenge the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

6. From the perusal of the record, the position which emerges is that the respondent no.2/Pradeek Mishra had moved an application under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act registered as Original Suit No.2656 of 2015 in which the judgment passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is ex-parte and while passing the judgment under appeal the court below has not observed any thing in regard to application for recall of order dated 28.08.2018 moved by the appellant. The impugned judgment appears to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Megarry J it is "justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical". The principles of natural justice or fundamental rules of procedure for administrative action are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code. They are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined.

8. Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified cannone. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.

9. The expressions "natural justice" and "Legal justice" do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defense.

10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. There princ