[2026:RJ-JD:12906-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3827/2025 Bhuri Devi D/o Mehram, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Jaroda Kala, (Presently Residing At Bera Ki Dhani, Sirsala, Dhava, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur), Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Harendra Mundel S/o Shri Kishroe Ram Mundel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jaroda Kala, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur Raj..

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

18/03/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. Appellant-wife is before this court assailing final judgement and decree dated 08.10.2025 passed by learned Family Court vide which petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent-husband under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the impugned order, are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 12.10.2024 in accordance with Hindu customs. On 15.10.2024, the appellant voluntarily went to her parental home, taking all her jewelry and personal belongings, citing urgent work. Thereafter, her parents allegedly refused to send her back, and under their influence, the appellant declined to return to the respondent. On these grounds, the respondent filed a petition seeking a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights.

2.1 The learned Family Court issued notice to the appellant, which initially remained unserved. Following her non-appearance, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against her on 18.07.2025.

2.2 After considering the evidence, the Family Court, by its impugned order dated 08.10.2025, allowed the respondent’s petition ex-parte. The Court held that the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish the grounds for restitution of conjugal rights, and accordingly, granted the decree against the appellant

2.3 Hence, this instant appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

4. Despite service, no one appears for the respondent.

5. It appears that it is a deliberate and strategic move on the part of the respondent-husband not to appear before this Court. Even the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2025, which is assailed herein and by which restitution of conjugal rights was directed by the learned Family Court, seems to have been obtained with the collateral motive of not implementing the same, so as to later avail the benefit of Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek dissolution of the marriage. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order were also passed ex parte without taking any effective steps to cause service on the appellant-wife. It further transpires that after the passing of the decree for restitution, the husband has made no endeavour for actual restitution, the decree remaining a mere legal formality.

6. On the other hand, grounds of the appeal herein are also not controverted by the respondent by filing any affidavit etc. upon causing of service of the appeal.

5. The conduct of the respondent, coupled with the deemed non-opposition to the appeal filed by the wife choosing not to defend the impugned final order and judgment dated 08.10.2025, persuades us to allow the appeal.

6. Accordingly, it is so ordered. Consequently, the impugned order and judgment dated 08.10.2025 is set aside with consequences to follow.

7. Any pending application stands disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J

61-Arjun/-