2025:HHC:7410 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (FC) No. 69 of 2024 Date of decision: 22.03.2025 Sapna Devi …Appellant Versus Ravinder Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. B. S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. The record reveals that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat, vide its order dated 24.07.2024, not only rejected the application filed by the appellant for setting aside ex parte order dated 12.01.2024, but then proceeded to record ex parte evidence of the respondent and pronounced the judgment on the same day i.e. 24.07.2024. 3. We are of the considered view that after the dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for setting aside ex parte order, at least, a bare minimum chance ought to 2 2025:HHC:7410 have been afforded to the appellant to assail the order rather than rushing to record the ex parte evidence of the respondent and thereafter pronouncing the judgment on the said day. 4. Obviously, in such circumstances, this has only resulted in an unnecessary litigation before this Court. 5. Moreover, having perused the grounds raised by the petitioner (respondent herein) in his petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1980 for the custody of minor daughter, the appellant in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been afforded a chance to not only file the reply, but also cross-examine the respondent, who alone has appeared as witness before granting the custody. 6. That apart, the appellant was also required to be afforded an opportunity of leading evidence, particularly, when there were certain serious allegations regarding the mental condition of the appellant. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, in case, order dated 12.01.2024, whereby the ex parte proceedings have been carried out against the appellant is set aside and the consequent order dated 24.07.2024, is also set aside. However, since the custody of the minor child is with that of the respondent herein, we are of the considered view that the same 3 2025:HHC:7410 should remain with the respondent till further orders, affording the appellant herein the visitation right. 8. Since there are vacations in the school where the minor child is studying, the appellant shall be entitled to the temporary custody of the child from today up to 07.04.2025. 9. The parties to appear before the learned Court below on 07.04.2025, when the child shall be produced before the Court. 10. The appellant herein shall also file her reply to the main petition and if so desire file an application for visitation right, which application needless to say shall be considered on its own merit. 11. The appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 22nd March, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)