vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2025 Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Riya Suralkar )

Date: 2025.11.17 19:02:07 +0530 nee Gloria Rebello ) Age: 32 years, Occupation: Business ) Residing at Room no 3, Patel ) Chawl, Vikhroli Village, ) Phirojshahnagar, Near Godrej ) Hospital, Next to Mutton Shop, ) Vikhroli East, Mumbai – 400079 )

...Appellant (Original Respondent)

V/s.

Rahul Suralkar ) Age: 32 years, Occupation: Business ) Residing at 1502, 1603/C2 Casa Tree ) Top, Lodha Upper Thane, Near ) Mankoli Bridge, Surai Village, ) Bhiwandi. )

...Respondent (Original Petitioner)

Ms.Priyanka Desai with Ms.Tvisha Desai & Ms.Janhavi Pise i/b The Fort Circle Advocates & Solicitors for the Appellant.

Ms.Pushpa Verma with Mr.Moiez Shaikh for the Respondent.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 1ST OCTOBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT (Per Sandesh Patil, J.) :-

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

2. Rule, by consent, rule returnable forthwith.

3. The present Family Court Appeal is directed against the Judgment, Decree and Order dated 5/11/2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Thane in proceedings bearing number P.A. No. 132/2022, whereby the petition of the petitioner/respondent herein was allowed and the marriage between the parties, which was solemnised on 18/9/2017, was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The present petition is filed by the appellant-wife, who is the respondent in Family Court.

4. The respondent-husband had filed the petition for divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The contention of the respondent-husband was that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18/9/2017 in the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Bandra, Mumbai in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The respondent- husband contended that the appellant-wife treated him with cruelty and therefore he sought dissolution of the marriage. The respondent-husband had given details of the manner in which, according to him, the appellant-wife had inflicted cruelty upon him.

5. The appellant-wife appeared before the Court, however, failed to file her written statement within time, and hence there was an order passed on 10/3/2023, below Exhibit 1 in the petition, to proceed, without written statement. The appellant-wife thereafter remained absent. She failed to lead her evidence, hence by an order dated 22/8/2024 passed below Exhibit 1, her evidence was closed. Thereafter, by an order dated

4/10/2024 passed below Exhibit 1, her right to argument was also forfeited.

6. The learned Judge, Family Court, framed an issue as to whether the petitioner had proved that after solemnization of marriage, the respondent treated him with cruelty. The learned Judge, Family Court, answered the issue in the affirmative and dissolved the marriage by passing judgment and order on 5/11/2024. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment, Decree and Order dated 05/11/20224, the applicant-wife has preferred the present Family Court appeal.

7. The matter was heard by us in Court. Thereafter, we had called the parties to the chambers, to ascertain whether any amicable settlement was possible. Since both the parties could not reach an amicable settlement, we proceeded to hear the parties on merits.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife argued that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law, contrary to the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience and deserves to be quashed and set aside. She submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court, has not given any reasons while answering issue number 1, viz., “Does the petitioner prove that after solemnization of marriage respondent treated him with cruelty.” The learned counsel for the appellant-wife also argued that although the appellant-wife had not filed written statement, and further, although the appellant-w