Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20190 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (FC) No. 25 of 2025 Date of decision:27.06.2025 ________________________________________________ Gunjan Sood …..Appellant. Versus Silki Sood ……Respondent. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. (Oral) The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Court below”) has maintained the instant appeal under Section 19(i) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against order dated 01.03.2025, in CMA No. 21-D/VI/2025, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the same by allowing the instant petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner-Gunjan Sood (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) filed a petition before the learned Court 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20190 ) 2 below under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage with his wife Smt. Silki Sood (respondent herein) by a decree of divorce. The said petition was dismissed in default, vide order dated 06.03.2021, passed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the petition, wherein it was contended that by mistake the petitioner wrongly noted down the date of hearing as 08.03.2021, instead of 06.03.2021. On 08.03.2021 the petitioner came to know that his case was actually fixed for 06.03.2021 and he applied for certified copy of the order, dated 06.03.3021, which was received on 18.03.2021. The petitioner further averred that his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate, but only for the bonafide reasons. 3. The application was contested by the respondent-Smt. Silki Sood by filing reply, wherein the contents of the application were denied. It was contended that the petitioner was being represented through a counsel and no reason had been assigned as to what prevented the counsel of the petitioner to attend the hearing. It was further Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20190 ) 3 contended that on 20.12.2020 the petitioner made a fraudulent facebook post showing judgment and decree qua the divorce of the petitioner and the respondent, which was having fraudulent seals of the Court. The respondent filed a complaint against such facebook post before SHO, Nagrota Bagwan on 21.12.2022 and in this regard FIR No. 14 of 2021, dated 13.01.2021 was registered against him under Sections 466 and 468 IPC. Lastly, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On 13.12.2023, the learned Court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether there are reasonable grounds to set-aside the order dated 06.03.2021, as alleged? OPA 2. Relief.” After deciding issue No. 1 against the petitioner, the application was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant appeal under Section 19(i) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the impugned order, dated 01.03.2025, with a prayer for quashing setting-aside the same by allowing the instant petition. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20190 ) 4 appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and carefully examined the entire record. 7. To prove its case, the petitioner himself appeared in the witness-box as AW-1and tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex. AW-1/A, wherein he deposed that by mistake he had noted down the date of hearing as 08.03.2021, instead of 06.03.2021. He further deposed that when on 08.03.2021 he came to attend the hearing of the case, he came to know that actually the case was fixed on 06.03.2021. He also deposed that thereafter he applied for the certified copy of order dated 06.03.2021, which he received on 18.03.2021. 8. We have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and after the close scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that the petitioner had wrongly noted down the next date of hearing of his case as 08.03.2021 instead of 06.03.2021 and when he came to attend the next hearing of the case on 08.03.2021, he came to know that his case was actually fixed on 06.03.2021, on which date it was dismissed in default. The perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner immediately applied for certified copy of the impugned order and on receiving the same he had promptly filed the application on 23.03.2021 for setting-aside the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20190 ) 5 impugned order and for restoration of his petition, i.e., within 30 days from the date when his petition was dismissed in default. 9. Thus, after close scrutiny of the entire material on record, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 06.03.2021 when his petition was called for hearing. Therefore, in view of the entirety of the circumstances and also in the interest of justice, order dated 06.03.2021, passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the petition of the petitioner in default, is quashed and set-aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to restore the petition of the petitioner to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 18.07.2025. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 27th June, 2025 (virender)