ORDER

1. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam (MP) in HMA Case No.25 of 2022 (Mangal v. Jaya ), whereby the Family Court has dismissed the interim application to grant an opportunity to submit the reply/written statement to the petitioner.

2. In brief, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 24 th May, 2015. Thereafter they both were blessed with a daughter. Respondent/husband has filed an application under section 13(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam (MP) which was registered as HMA Case No.25 of 2022 seeking divorce from the petitioner/wife.

3. Thereafter due to failure of appearance even after service of notices to the petitioner, the learned family Court has declared her ex-parte and proceeded further on date 25.4.2022. Thereafter, on date 25.8.2022, the petitioner through her counsel appeared before the family Court and has participated in the Court proceedings. However, due to lack of knowledge regarding the correct hearing date, the petitioner and her counsel failed to appear before the family Court as a result of which the family Court has again declared the petitioner ex-parte. However,on 9.12.2023, the petitioner/wife through her counsel filed an application of Order 9 rule 7 CPC which was allowed by the family court on a cost of Rs.2000/- and it was further directed to the petitioner to submit the written statement on the next date fixed as 25.1.2024. It is also submitted that on 25.1.2024, an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner but on account of failure to submit the reply/written statement, the family court has closed the right of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner before this Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC which was allowed by the family Court but on account of failure to submit the written statement, the family court has closed the right of her to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses. He further submits that being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a petition before the Hon'ble Court for setting aside of the said order. It is stated that liberty was granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the family court and in case, if the application is dismissed then she may again approach the Hon'ble Court. Thereafter vide order dated 3.7.2024, the petitioner has filed two separate applications one for granting opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the other for granting opportunity to submit the written statement or reply. Later on, the respondent has submitted the reply of both the applications. Thereafter the family court has allowed the one of the application of petitioner to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses but has denied the other application regarding submitting the written statement or reply in the matter. It is further submitted that in case the written statement is not allowed to be taken on record, the defence of the petitioner shall be prejudiced and would also impact the future of her young daughter. Reliance is further placed upon Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, Civil Appeal No.3788 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on May 9, 2022.

5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records of the case.

6. For the purpose of procedure generally, the proceedings before the Family Court, subject to other provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A Family Court is accordingly deemed to be a Civil Court and has all the powers of such Court. However, it may be noticed tha