The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of expeditious trial and disposal under Section 40-B of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the limitations on raising certain arguments in a regular first appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1954’) r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 18/12/2019 passed by the Family Court, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 89-A/2019 (Arunoday Singh vs. Lee Anne Elton).

2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the appellant, a citizen of Canada met with respondent in the winters of 2012 in a Retreat in Goa. The appellant was working as Manager and Instructor in Ayurvedik Spa and Detox Centre at Goa. The appellant and respondent started dating from August 2013. In 2013, the respondent introduced the appellant to his family members as his girlfriend. In April 2016, the respondent visited Canada and met with the family members of the appellant. Both of them after meeting the family members decided to bind themselves in a wedlock. The respondent provided Rs.5,00,000/-to appellant for running a cafe. The cafe business suffered huge loss. Despite that both of them solemnized marriage at Bhopal on 13/12/2016 under the provisions of Act of 1954. The Additional District Magistrate & Marriage Officer registered the said marriage.

3. Soon after the marriage, as per the stand of respondent, there were series of incidents which shows cruelty on the part of the appellant. In view of serious matrimonial discord, desertion and cruelty, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 89-A/2019 before the Family Court, Bhopal. The Family Court put the other side to notice and decided the matter in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

4. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said suit was filed in the Family Court on 10/05/2019 and was decided on 18/12/2019. The extraordinary speed with which Family Court proceeded and decided the matter is unheard of and unusual. This itself shows that sufficient opportunity has not been granted to the appellant to contest the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to the order sheets of Family Court submits that although notice of the case was served on the appellant, she could not engage a lawyer and in this backdrop, the Court below should have waited for a reasonable period to enable the appellant to engage a lawyer. He also criticized the order of the Court below whereby Court below proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.

6. United Engineers and Contractors vs. Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 2013 SCC 2239 is relied upon to contend that appellate Court is obliged to independently assess the evidence and reach to its own conclusion. The appellant’s multiple embryo are kept in a hospital in Bombay. The appellant is still interested to continue with the marriage. The Family Court has considered her certain e-mails and on the strength of that reached to an erroneous conclusion. The respondent did not produce few e-mails sent by the appellant to him. Extract of such e-mails are filed along with written submissions. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.

7. Representing the husband, Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Court below granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant to defend herself. He also placed reliance on the order sheets of Court below. It is urged that the notices were duly served on the appellant. Her e-mails show that she was not interested to continue with the marriage. She made a request to adjourn the proceedings on the pretext that she is filing a petition before the Supreme Court for transferring the matter from Madhya Pradesh.

8. It is argued that a petition was indeed filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court Transfer Petitions (Civil) No. 2109/2019 which was entertained on 03/09/2019 for limited purpose of sending the parties for mediation. It is submitted that the matter was fixed before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 14/10/2019 but appellant did not a