2026:CGHC:6993-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 397 of 2025 • Vimal Kumar Yadav S/o Bhojram Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Urdana Naka, Ward No. 46, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus • Smt. Rajkumari Yadav W/o Vimal Kumar Yadav Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Putpura, Sadak Para, P.S. Tahsil and Distt.

Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 7879798169 ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Punjabi, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

09-02-2026

1. The present is the first appeal under Section 91(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 23-07-2025 passed by the learned Family Court Raigarh in Misc. Civil Case No.F-22/2024 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil

DMAA iOg D iHt I a LAl MK y HMsi A gEN nDed by

D18a:t1e0: :23052 +6.00523.103 Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) was allowed and ex-parte

order dated 28-07-2023 was set aside.

2. The appellant is husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 29-04-2015. After some time of marriage dispute arose between the parties and ultimately the appellant/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 15-02-2023 before the learned Family Court Raigarh for grant of divorce. In the said divorce proceeding the ex-parte proceeding was drawn on 15-06-2023 when despite service of notice upon her she has not given her appearance before the learned Family Court and ultimately on 28-07-2023 the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the present appellant/husband granting decree of divorce in his favour.

3. The respondent came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree when she appeared in the proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act before the learned trial Court, then she moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC before the learned Family Court Raigarh for setting aside the ex- parte judgment and decree dated 28-07-2023. The said application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned Family Court Raigarh and the ex-party judgment and decree dated 28-07-2023 has been set aside and restored the Civil Suit No. F41A/2023. The said order dated 23-07-2025 is under challenge in the present first appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when the respondent/wife did not appear in the proceeding before the learned Family Court despite service of notice upon her, the learned Family Court has no option except to proceed ex-parte against the respondent/wife. There is no sufficient explanation from the respondent/wife for her non-appearance on the date when the ex-parte proceeding was drawn against her. Even the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was filed in belated stage and there is no explanation for its delay. Only to delay the proceeding she intentionally had not appeared in the proceeding before the learned Family Court and after lapse of a long time she filed her application for setting aside the ex-party judgment and decree. The act and action of the respondent/wife is not bonafide and the application has been allowed without considering the true aspect of the case. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 23-07-2025 may be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife supported the impugned order and has submitted that the appellant may contest the case on merits for which he is having ample opportunity for the same.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Family Court and gone through the material annexed with the appeal.

7. Undisp