IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1431-2026 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Usha ...Pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner Versus Deepak ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Mehak Ghangas, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner-wife has invoked the supervisory jurisdic(cid:27)on of this Court challenging the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, whereby the applica(cid:27)on filed by the respondent-husband for restora(cid:27)on of his pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed and the order dated 03.11.2023 dismissing the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on in default was recalled.

2. The record reveals that the respondent-husband had ins(cid:27)tuted a pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolu(cid:27)on of marriage. The ma7er had progressed substan(cid:27)ally and had reached the stage of rebu7al evidence/arguments. On 03.11.2023, none appeared on behalf of the husband and consequently the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The husband moved an applica(cid:27)on for restora(cid:27)on on 01.12.2023 sta(cid:27)ng that he and his counsel had been regularly a7ending the proceedings. It was explained that on 03.11.2023, his counsel was unwell and could not appear and that he had requested another advocate to inform the Court accordingly. The husband himself could not appear as his father was ill. It was further pleaded that the ma7er was at the final stage and dismissal at that juncture would cause irreparable prejudice. The learned Family Court, a>er YOGESH MEHTA hearing both sides, found sufficient cause and restored the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on.

4. The principal conten(cid:27)on raised before this Court is that the restora(cid:27)on applica(cid:27)on was not signed by the counsel through whom the husband had been prosecu(cid:27)ng the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on and therefore, was not maintainable. It is further contended that the husband was a habitual defaulter and the Family Court erred in restoring the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on.

5. This Court finds no merit in either conten(cid:27)on.

6. Firstly, a perusal of the restora(cid:27)on applica(cid:27)on (Annexure P-2) shows that it is duly signed and verified by the applicant-husband himself. The Code of Civil Procedure does not mandate that an applica(cid:27)on must necessarily bear the signature of the engaged counsel. Order VI Rule 14 CPC requires pleadings to be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. Even otherwise, procedural prescrip(cid:27)ons are handmaidens of jus(cid:27)ce and not its mistress. The absence of signature of a par(cid:27)cular advocate cannot, by itself, render the applica(cid:27)on non-maintainable when the party has duly signed and verified it. The objec(cid:27)on raised is hyper-technical in nature and does not go to the root of jurisdic(cid:27)on.

7. Secondly, the principles governing restora(cid:27)on of proceedings dismissed in default are well se7led. Under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, a suit dismissed for default may be restored, if the plain(cid:27)ff sa(cid:27)sfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The expression “sufficient cause” has consistently been interpreted liberally so as to advance substan(cid:27)al jus(cid:27)ce. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that unless mala fides or deliberate negligence is apparent, courts should lean in favour of adjudica(cid:27)on on merits rather than termina(cid:27)on on technical grounds.

8. The present case assumes addi(cid:27)onal significance inasmuch as it arises out of matrimonial proceedings. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted with the object of promo(cid:27)ng concilia(cid:27)on and securing speedy se7lement of disputes rela(cid:27)ng to marriage and family affairs. Proceedings before Fami