[2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 275 of 2023 Rekha Devi, aged about 30 years, w/o Sudhir Kumar, D/o Late Anand Bhagat, resident of Village-Murhu Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Murhu, District- Khunti, presently residing at her father’s house, at Village-Suisa, P.O.-Suisa, P.S.-Bagmundi, District-Purulia (West Bengal). … … Appellant/opposite party Versus Sudhir Kumar, aged about 40 years, s/o Sri Shaligram Saw, resident of Village-Murhu Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Murhu, District-Khunti. … … Respondent/petitioner ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Respondent : None ---------------------------- 10/Dated: 30.10.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khunti in Matrimonial Case No. 04 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has allowed the matrimonial suit filed by the respondent herein by dissolving the marriage solemnized in between the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the original matrimonial suit needs to be referred herein as under: The marriage of appellant and opposite party was solemnized on 28.04.2016 at Rajasthan Bhawan, Khunti according to Hindu Rites and custom and after the marriage appellant and respondent started their conjugal life at Village- Murhu Basti, PS-Murhu, District-Khunti. The marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized with each other without any dowry and after the marriage, the appellant was taken by respondent to her matrimonial Home at Murhu Basti, PS Murhu, District Khunti. The respondent could detect the reason of unhappiness [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 2 and dissatisfaction of appellant towards her husband and respondent due to his quite black complexion while the appellant having fair complexion and for this appellant always haunting into her mind being the reason of her dissatisfaction from right to her arrival in her matrimonial house and she was not discharging her moral duties towards father-in-law and mother-in-law and she was also found in absence and fickle mind many times. Further, after marriage, the appellant declined to share the bed and remained silent without giving any response to the respondent. Further, the appellant was very much interested to talk to another man familiar to the family of respondent but from the core of her heart she was not willing and accepting the respondent to lead her conjugal life as husband and wife although, the respondent tried his level best to make appellant happy by giving and offering any items so demanded by the appellant. Lastly, appellant separated her bed from the bed room of her husband/respondent and whenever respondent did try to convince the appellant for consummating marriage with a view to establish physical relationship with appellant which was strongly and violently opposed by her resulting which respondent suffered serious frustration due to this unbearable shock. Further, the respondent in his divorce petition has stated that in spite of the aforesaid conduct of the appellant, the respondent heard that the appellant will change herself in near future but behavioral approach of appellant was not rectified and changed even though respondent provided every comfort and made possible arrangement for felicity of life of appellant despite of the fact of her negligence in discharging her moral duties towards the respondent and her in-laws. Lastly, the appellant disclosed before the respondent that she had absolutely no interest to lead conjugal life with the respondent and thereby the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty. Further, the respondent in his divorce petition, has stated that the appellant was very much dissatisfied with the black complexion of [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 3 respondent and appellant every time used to comment sarcastically along with vulgar and unhealthy remarks to respondent. Further, submission of the respondent, in his divorce petition, interlocutory application is that the appellant used to talk frequently with Chotu Saw of Harijan Basti Murhu, who infact handed over mobile phone to the appellant without the knowledge of respondent and others. The respondent, decided to accompany the appellant in her Maike at village-Suisa and on 09.08.2019, appellant was handed over to her father and brothers by stating that if appellant will amend or reform herself, then the respondent will again take her back from her matrimonial home. Lastly, the respondent approached to the matrimonial home of appellant on 19.10.2020 for taking her back with him after Durga Puja but appellant denied to come with respondent passing a derogatory and racial remark, resulting which the appellant deserted respondent from her company and society since 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the respondent filed a matrimonial case under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty which had been allowed by the learned court against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove which led to filing of the present appeal that, as per the Original Matrimonial Suit, the marriage of appellant and opposite party was solemnized on 28.04.2016 at Rajasthan Bhawan, Khunti according to Hindu Rites and custom and after the marriage appellant and respondent started their conjugal life at Village- Murhu Basti, PS-Murhu, District-Khunti. The marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized with each other without any dowry and after the marriage, the appellant was taken by respondent to her matrimonial Home at Murhu Basti, PS Murhu, District Khunti. The respondent was dissatisfied with the behaviour of the appellant as the appellant was not performing her duties and not taking care of the in-laws. Further, it was the case of the respondent before the learned court that after marriage, the appellant declined to share the bed and the [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 4 appellant was interested to talk to another man familiar to the family of respondent but she was not ready to lead her conjugal life. Lastly, appellant separated her bed from the bed room of her husband/respondent and whenever respondent did try to convince the appellant for consummating marriage with a view to establish physical relationship with appellant which was strongly and violently opposed by her resulting which respondent suffered serious frustration due to this unbearable shock. Further, the respondent in his divorce petition, has stated that the appellant was dissatisfied with the black complexion of respondent and appellant every time used to comment sarcastically along with vulgar and unhealthy remarks to respondent. Further, submission of the respondent, in his divorce petition, interlocutory application is that the appellant used to talk frequently with Chotu Saw of Harijan Basti Murhu, who infact handed over mobile phone to the appellant without the knowledge of respondent and others. Thereafter, the respondent, decided to accompany the appellant in her Maike at village-Suisa and on 09.08.2019, appellant was handed over to her father and brothers by stating that if appellant will amend or reform herself, then the respondent will again take her back from her matrimonial home. Lastly, the respondent approached to the matrimonial home of appellant on 19.10.2020 for taking her back with him after Durga Puja but appellant denied to come with respondent passing a derogatory and racial remark, resulting which the appellant deserted to respondent from her company and society since 09.08.2019. 4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the respondent had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as also on the ground that the appellant is not willing to lead conjugal life with the respondent. 5. It requires to refer herein that since the respondent appellant wife did not appear before the learned Family Court as such, the learned court decided to proceed ex-parte. [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 5 6. The evidences have been led on behalf of the respondent-husband. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed allowing the suit by dissolving the marriage solemnized in between the parties. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has taken the sole ground that the judgment impugned has been passed ex-parte only on the basis of presumption of service of notice as per the tracking report dated 18.03.2021 as also the notice published in the Anand Bazar Patrika dated 20.10.2022, hence, it has been submitted that without valid service of notice no order of proper paper publication could be passed and same is against the principle of natural justice. Further there is no execution report with regard to receiving of notice. 8. It has also been submitted that the appellant-wife has not been given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-husband, thereby, ex-parte judgment has been passed. 9. It has, therefore, been contended that the impugned judgment and decree since have been passed ex-parte and no case on behalf of the appellant wife could be brought on the record which made the assertion of the husband through his evidence oral and documentary and remained unrebutted therefore, the impugned judgment and decree need to be interfered with. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, needs to be interfered with. Analysis: 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned judgment. 12. It requires to refer herein that this Court has issued notice upon the respondent-husband vide order dated 13.02.2024 and the notice has been served. The respondent-husband is being represented by Mr. Krishna [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 6 Prajapati, learned counsel and appearance had been made on 25.06.2025 and later on 19.09.2025 but none is present to represent the respondent- husband today. 13. Since the pleadings are complete and the learned trial court record is available on record, as such, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter on merit. 14. Before proceeding it needs to refer that the instant Appeal was barred by limitation of 469 days which has been condoned vide order dated 18.11.2024. For ready reference the order dated 18.11.2024 by which delay of 469 days was condoned by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court is being quoted as under:- “I.A. No. 11537 of 2023 1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo, learned counsel for the appellant. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 469 days in filing the appeal. 3. The reason which has been assigned in the instant application is that an ex-parte order of divorce was passed against the appellant herein and she was not aware about the said order and subsequently on coming to know about the said fact, the present appeal has been filed. 4. On being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant interlocutory application, the same is allowed and delay of 469 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. 5. I.A. No. 11537 of 2023 stands disposed of.” 15. Now this Court is adverting to the factual aspects of the instant case. The sole ground as has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant wife that the impugned judgment and decree have been passed ex-parte and, as such, we have not gone through the issue on merit, rather we have concentrated ourselves on the issue of the fact that as to whether the impugned judgment and decree can be said to be ex-parte or not. 16. This Court before answering the said issue needs to refer herein the requirement to secure appearance of the party who is necessary party to the lis for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issue. 17. There is no dispute that the appellant-wife herein is the necessary party, since, the entire allegation has been alleged against the appellant-wife and as such, she had to be given an opportunity to rebut the said allegation. [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 7 18. It is also settled that the Court is required to issue notice for the purpose of securing appearance of the concerned parties. The procedure to secure appearance is provided under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the applicability of the procedural law as available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 19. The requirement, as per the law as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of securing the appearance of the parties, it is the duty of the court to take all effective measures to secure the appearance of the parties concerned, i.e. by issuance of notice through registered post or through ordinary process and if on the basis of the settled procedure as laid down for securing the appearance, even the parties are not appearing, then the order is to be passed that too on the basis of application which is to be made by the party to go for the substituted service of notice through paper publication. 20. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant- wife, primarily on the issue of ex-parte hearing, has gone through the trial court records which has been called upon by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024. 21. It is evident from the order dated 03.03.2021 of the learned Family court which is available in the order sheet that the direction for issuance of notice upon the respondent (appellant wife herein) has been passed. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the case was deferred and posted for 05.04.2021. It is evident from the order dated 11.06.2021 that the registered notice issue against the respondent wife has been returned with report that opposite party respondent wife is not residing the address mentioned on the registered envelope. 22. It is further evident from the order dated 01.10.2021 that the learned court upon the prayer made by petitioner husband has passed the order by issuing direction upon the respondent-husband to take steps for service of notice through paper publication. 23. Thereafter, the learned Family Court vide order dated 29.11.2021 has observed that all the possible steps have been taken for appearance of the [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 8 appellant-wife but the appellant-wife did not appear, as such, the proceeding has been set for ex-parte hearing. 24. It is evident from the perusal of order-sheet that the notice through registered post although had been sent, but the order of publication has been passed in haste. 25. It appears from the order-sheet of the learned Family Court particularly from order dated 01.10.2021 and 29.11.2021 that proceeding has been set ex-parte hearing only on the basis of presumption of service of notice as per the delivery report/tracking report of the post office as also the notice published in the Anand Bazar paper dated 20.09.2021. Therefore, it is evident that order of paper publication was made without proper service of notice. 26. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the procedure as laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been followed and merely on the basis of the paper publication, the case has been posted for ex-parte proceeding vide order dated 01.10.2021. 27. Thus, from the perusal of the order sheet clearly indicates that case has been fixed for ex-parte hearing without taking proper recourse and the learned Court failed to adopt the procedure established by law particularly about the publication and proceeded ex-parte resulting into miscarriage of justice. 28. It needs to refer herein that the case which is related to the matrimonial dispute concerning annulment of marriage or divorce proceeding is a serious matter and it connects entire life of husband and wife against whom a decree for declaration of nullity or divorce has been sought. In the said matter, the court should not follow mechanical approach rather the court should take all statutory provision into account which is expected for appearance of the party. 29. This Court, based upon the aforesaid as has been referred hereinabove that the appellant being the wife and a contesting party upon whom the allegation of cruelty has been levelled by filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a)) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as such, she [2025:JHHC:32707-DB] 9 ought to have given all effective opportunities to contest the case by taking effective measures for the purpose of securing her appearance, but, the record suggests that no concrete efforts have been taken by the learned court. 30. This Court, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, is of the view that the learned court while posting the matter for ex-parte hearing has not taken the proper recourse for appearance of the appellant-wife available in the statute and has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. As such, the impugned judgment and decree need interference for providing an opportunity to the appellant-wife to defend herself. 31. Accordingly, the judgment dated 31.03.2022 and decree dated 13.04.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Khunti in Matrimonial Case No.04 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set-aside. 32. The Matrimonial Case No.04 of 2021 is revived for fresh adjudication of the issue. 33. Let the case be decided on merits afresh. 34. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife has undertaken before this Court to appear before the concerned Family Court on 20.11.2025 and on that day, the matter will be decided in accordance with law. 35. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the instant appeal is hereby disposed of. 36. Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of. 37. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned court, forthwith. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 30th October, 2025 Saurabh/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 06.11.2025