Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2025.12.11

11:49:40 +0530

2025:CGHC:59651-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 404 of 2025 Bhumi Sejpal W/o Deepak Sejpal Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.

18, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur C.G.

... Appellant versus Deepak Sejpal S/o Manibhai Sejpal Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur C.G.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawa l Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l Order on Board (09.12.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The matter is listed for further orders however, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties it is heard finally.

2. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Case No.19/2025 whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not shown sufficient reason for her non-

appearance on 09.07.2025.

3. The respondent-husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which the appellant-wife has appeared and filed her statement and the case was fixed for evidence of the appellant-wife, the appellant was proceeded ex parte on account of her absence and on 10/07/2025, the judgment and decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent dissolving the marriage between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits that she moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, stating she received the ex parte decree by post on 14/08/2025. She then filed an application for condonation of delay on 18/08/2025, explaining her absence on 09/07/2025 was due to her daughter's illness in Amarkantak, supported by an affidavit.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the order passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh is absolutely justified and required no interference.

6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is not disputed that on 07.07.2025 & 09.07.2025, neither the appellant nor her Counsel appeared before the Family Court and the reasons assigned that on 09.07.2025, appellant-wife received information that her daughter who studying in Amarkantak, is unwell, therefore, she rushed to Amarkantak, therefore, she could not appear on the date of hearing thereafter she received a copy of decree and thereafter on 18.08.2025 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application for condonation of delay which was rejected by the Family Court Manendragarh, which is in our considered view is not justified. The Family Court ought to have considered the reason assigned by the appellant in the proper perspective. She had been regularly appearing before the Family Court through her counsel, but suddenly she had to rush to Amarkantak to meet her daughter. Her counsel ought to have sought an adjournment, but he did not appear, and she was proceeded ex parte. In our considered opinion, sufficient cause has been shown for not appearing on 09/07/2025 when the case was called for hearing. In view of this, sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the application and for setting aside the ex parte decree.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed off. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is allowed. The decree dated 10/07/2025 passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh, in Civil Suit No. 62A/2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Manendragarh, to decide the suit afresh from the stage when the Appellant proceeded ex-parte.

9. Record of the Family Court be sent back along with certified copy of this order for co