The duty of the Family Court to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of family disputes, as emphasized in the Family Court Act' 1984, should guide its proceedings, and it has the power to lay down its own procedure to achieve reconciliation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar for rejection of the applications 17-Ga-2 & 19-Ga-2, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied with the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the order dated 03.04.2019 to proceed with the suit ex-parte, on account of non appearance of the appellant/defendant on the date fixed before the Family Court. In the order dated 03.04.2019 to proceed ex-parte, it was noted by the Family Court that the appellant/defendant therein was not present and no written settlement was filed by her.

3. A perusal of the order sheet of the Family Court brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit filed today indicates that on the presentation of the suit on 10.09.2018, the plaintiff/defendant was directed to take steps for service of summons upon the defendant. On the next date fixed, further time was granted to do pairvi within seven days and 14.01.2019 was fixed for written statement. The appellant herein/defendant/wife had put in appearance before the Family Court on 14.01.2019 itself and time was granted to file written statement while fixing 03.04.2019 by the Family Court. On 03.04.2019, the defendant wife could not appear and written statement was not filed by her. The decision was, therefore, taken to proceed ex-parte and 10.07.2019 was fixed by the Family Court. On 10.07.2019, nothing happened as the Presiding Officer was on training and the matter was posted on 13.08.2019 for ex-parte evidence. On the said date itself, the applications 17-Ga-2 and 18-Ga-2 were filed by the defendant wife to seek recall of the order dated 03.04.2019 to proceed in the suit ex-parte. The said applications were contested by the plaintiff/respondent herein for a period of more than three years and they have been rejected vide order dated 09.03.2022, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the present appeal is not maintainable, the order dated 09.03.2022 being an interlocutory order.

5. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent herein is found misconceived, in as much as, on account of dismissal of the applications 17-Ga-22 and 19-Ga-22 by the order dated 09.03.2022, the right of the plaintiff to contest the suit for divorce filed by the respondent husband has been taken away. The order, thus, causes serious prejudice to the appellant and amounts to final determination of the dispute being raised in the application 17-Ga-2 and 19-Ga-2. The order dated 09.03.2022 which decides the issue in relation to the appellant wife to contest the suit filed by her husband cannot be said to an interlocutory order, so as to keep it out of the purview of section 19 of the Family Court Act' 1984.

6. The appeal is, thus, held maintainable.

7. The second submission of the learned counsel for the respondent husband is that since the appellant wife has failed to file the written statement within the time period allowed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the Family Court was right in proceeding for hearing of the suit ex-parte in accordance with the Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and the appellant herein cannot seek recall of the order dated 03.04.2019 to proceed ex-parte.

8. As far as the provision of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since no written statement was filed by the appellant wife on the date fixed before the Family Court, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to recall the order passed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC to give opportunity to the wife to file written statement.

9. Testing this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, we may record that the Family Courts have been constituted under the Family Court Act' 1984 with the social objectives of promoting conciliation and secure