AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally FA(MAT) No. 109 of 2023 VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Judgment Reserved on 17.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on 06.08.2025

1 - Smt. Laxmin Sahu D/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Sahupara, Sargaon, Police Chowki - Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus

1 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kadar, Police Station And Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ----Non-appellant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Non-appellant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV Judgment

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-wife (non-applicant therein) against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 62A/2022, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the suit/application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.04.2012, as per Hindu rites and customs. On 23.12.2013, a daughter namely Madhu Sahu was born out of their wedlock, who currently lives with the appellant-wife. The husband filed a divorce application / petition before the Family Court stating that the appellant-wife treated him with cruelty, mentally harassed him, frequently insisted on going to her maternal home in Sargaon, and voluntarily deserted him since 2014, without any reasonable cause or justification. The husband asserted that repeated efforts to bring the wife back were in vain and the matrimonial relationship had irretrievably broken down.

3. The record reveals that the appellant-wife was duly served with summons. Despite service, she did not appear before the Family Court on any of the dates of hearing. The matter was adjourned on multiple occasions, but the appellant failed to avail herself of those opportunities. Ultimately, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte and decided the matter based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the husband.

4. Aggrieved by the said ex-parte decree, the appellant-wife has filed the present appeal, contending that she was not aware of the proceedings and did not get an opportunity to defend herself. She has prayed for setting aside the ex-parte decree and for restoration of the matrimonial relationship.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-wife had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Family Court and that she was never effectively served. It is contended that she was residing at her parental house during the relevant period and due to certain family and health issues, she could not appear. It is argued that the ex-parte proceedings have caused grave prejudice to the appellant, as she was denied a fair opportunity to contest the case. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have taken additional measures to secure her presence, considering the sensitive nature of matrimonial disputes. It is argued that marriage is a sacred institution and should not be dissolved without effective adjudication on merits with participation of both parties. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Thangam vs. M. Rajesh reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 5190 and Indira Gangele vs. Shailendra Kumar Gangele reported in 1992 SCC OnLine MP 71

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband su