1 2025:CGHC:29677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 589 of 2025  Sushrut Das S/o Harikishore Das Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Samlai Mandir Lt. Chiranjeevi Das Road New Ganj Para, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Swati Das W/o Sushrut Das D/o P.K. Mishra Aged About 25 Years R/o Lig Colony, Road Behind Kumar Provision Store Mowa P.S. Pandri District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Vedangi Jangde, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02. 07.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Case No. 68/2022, by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby, an application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts of the present case are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 13(1)(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Act, 1955”), bearing HMA case No. 412/2019 at Family Court, Raipur against the petitioner. The petitioner/husband also moved an application under 13 of Act, 1955 against the respondent bearing case No. F118A/2019 at Family Court, Raigarh. An application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the respondent and vide order dated 27.08.2021, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.07 17:39:59 +0530 2 Case No. F118A/2019 was transferred from Family Court, Raigarh to Family Court, Raipur and Case No. F118A/2019 got merged with HMA Case No. 412/2019. The learned Family Court, Raipur passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 13.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree on 13.06.2022, but the same has been rejected by the learned Family Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 on the ground that the then Presiding Officer has already disposed of the case, and in these circumstances, the application moved under the provision of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC would not be maintainable. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded the sufficient opportunity of hearing and the learned Family Court passed an ex-parte order. She would further submit the respondent/wife lodged various complaints against the petitioner and he was arrested. She would also submit that the mental status of the petitioner was not stable at that time and for the said reason, he could not appear before the learned Family Court. She would further submit that the learned Family Court has not considered these facts and passed the impugned order. She would contend that the learned Family Court committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. She would pray to allow the instant petition. 4. I have heard Ms. Jangde and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Act, 1955 against the petitioner before the learned Family Court, Raipur. The petitioner/husband also moved an application under 13 of the Act, 1955 against the respondent at Family Court, Raigarh. An application 3 under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the respondent and the case was transferred from Family Court, Raigarh to Family Court, Raipur. The learned Family Court, Raipur passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 13.04.2022. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the application was moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC after the disposal of the Civil Suit; therefore, the learned Family Court rejected it. Further, the judgment was passed on 13.04.2022 and the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was moved on 13.06.2022 after the pronouncement of the judgment, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition as no proceeding was pending when such an application was moved. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant