Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010265902025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/502/2025 SHARNA KAMAL ROY @ SWARNA KAMAL ROY SON OF SRI SHANTI RANJAN ROY,RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.4,VILLAGE- SHARADA COLONY,ANIRBAN PATH, P.O. GOTA NAGAR,P.S. JALUKBARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM-781011.MOBILE NO.9387555239 VERSUS BARNALI SARKAR W/O SHARNA KAMAL ROY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, HUTKHOLA, MIZIBARI, P.O. ALISINGA, P.S. DHEKIAJULI, SONITPUR, ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 9387555239 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T BARUAH, MS A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. A Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the petitioner Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy impugning the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Sonitpur in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 whereby the prayer for grant of further time for filing of written statement by the present petitioner was rejected and the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. She further states that the respondent has filed suit for divorce which was before the Court of Ld. District Judge, Sonitpur which was registered as Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025. She submits that as the petitioner and the respondent are related to each other as husband and wife, there was a talk of compromise going on between both the parties and therefore, there was delay in filing of written statement. She submits that however, the Ld. Trial Court ignoring this aspect that the suit before the Court was a matrimonial suit, strictly construed the provisions of order and fixed the case for ex-parte hearing against the petitioner in spite of the fact that it was pleaded by the petitioner before the Court that a talk of compromise was going on between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court ought to have given extended time to the petitioner beyond the period of 90(ninety) days considering the fact that the suit between the parties is a matrimonial suit and a talk of compromise was going on between the parties. She submits that now the petitioner is ready to file written statement on any date directed by the date on any terms and conditions. She further submits that the Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 is fixed before the Ld. Trial Court tomorrow i.e. on 11.12.2025 and the petitioner is willing and ready to file written statement tomorrow Page No.# 3/4 itself subject to any conditions imposed by the Court. 4. Though Order 8 Rule 1 prescribes a time limit for filing of written statement by the defendant within 90(ninety) days of receipt of summons by the defendant. However, the time limit so prescribed is not a absolute outer limit, more so in matrimonial cases. Under Order XXXIIA(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is incumbent on the Court to try, in cases involving family disputes to make a endeavors so that party reaches an amicable settlement amongst themselves. 5. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ground for failing to file written statement by the husband within prescribed period of 90(ninety) days ought not to have been brushed aside totally by the Ld. Trial Court and that opportunity ought to have been given to the present petitioner to file the written statement. 6. As the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to file written statement in the aforesaid matrimonial case. Hence, the petitioner is allowed to file written statement in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 tomorrow i.e. on 11.12.2025 before the Ld. Trial Court subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5000/-. 7. It is made clear that payment of cost shall be a condition preceded before acceptance of the said written statement by the Ld. Trial Court. The Cost, if deposited, shall be paid to the respondent wife. 8. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent side. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant