Order(Oral)

Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Family Court No. 3, Udaipur, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the “HMA”) seeking dissolution of marriage, was allowed ex parte against the appellant husband.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 13 of HMA seeking dissolution of marriage, stating that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 16.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The respondent-wife alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant-husband and his family members in connection with unlawful demands of dowry, including a demand of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.1 The respondent-wife further pleaded that, under the pretext of administering painkillers, she was given medication intended to cause a miscarriage, and that when her health deteriorated after taking the said medication, she was forced to return to her parental home, where she has been residing ever since. The appellant-husband deliberately refused to take back the respondent-wife to her matrimonial home. On the basis of such conduct, along with other grounds, the respondent-wife asserted that it had become impossible for the parties to cohabit and accordingly sought dissolution of the marriage.

2.2 Upon registration of the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA, notice was issued to the appellant-husband, who appeared before the Family Court and filed his reply. The appellant denied all allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and desertion. He specifically contended that the respondent was never turned out of the matrimonial home and that he had no knowledge of her alleged pregnancy or miscarriage, asserting that she was not in such a condition at the time she left the matrimonial home.

2.3 The appellant further submitted that his family was financially sound, with his father holding a respectable position in the Forest Department and his brothers being well-settled in Dubai, thereby negating any necessity for dowry demands. He also alleged that, on the contrary, his father was suffering from cancer, leading to financial strain, yet no demand was ever made from the respondent’s family. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

2.4 On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed three issues. The respondent examined two witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of her case. However, due to the non-appearance of the appellant on certain dates, the proceedings were conducted ex parte, and ultimately, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s petition and granted a decree of divorce vide judgment dated 04.01.2025.

2.5 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Family Court has committed grave errors of law as well as facts while passing the impugned decree of divorce, rendering the same wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the Family Court has failed to properly appreciate and conclude the evidence on record and has returned findings contrary to the material available before it. The decree has been passed without proper and complete consideration of the evidence led by the parties, and thus the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the Family Court itself recorded a categorical finding on Issue No. 1 that the allegations of cruelty, which formed the sole basis of the respondent’s petition, were not proved and that there was not even a single piece of evidence on record to substantiate such allegations against the appellant. In such circumstances, once the principal grou