1 2026:CGHC:6993-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 397 of 2025 • Vimal Kumar Yadav S/o Bhojram Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Urdana Naka, Ward No. 46, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • Smt. Rajkumari Yadav W/o Vimal Kumar Yadav Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Putpura, Sadak Para, P.S. Tahsil and Distt. Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 7879798169 ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Punjabi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09-02-2026 1. The present is the first appeal under Section 91(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 23-07-2025 passed by the learned Family Court Raigarh in Misc. Civil Case No.F-22/2024 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) was allowed and ex-parte Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.13 18:10:35 +0530 2 order dated 28-07-2023 was set aside. 2. The appellant is husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 29-04-2015. After some time of marriage dispute arose between the parties and ultimately the appellant/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 15-02-2023 before the learned Family Court Raigarh for grant of divorce. In the said divorce proceeding the ex-parte proceeding was drawn on 15-06-2023 when despite service of notice upon her she has not given her appearance before the learned Family Court and ultimately on 28-07-2023 the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the present appellant/husband granting decree of divorce in his favour. 3. The respondent came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree when she appeared in the proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act before the learned trial Court, then she moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC before the learned Family Court Raigarh for setting aside the ex- parte judgment and decree dated 28-07-2023. The said application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned Family Court Raigarh and the ex-party judgment and decree dated 28-07-2023 has been set aside and restored the Civil Suit No. F41A/2023. The said order dated 23-07-2025 is under challenge in the present first appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that 3 when the respondent/wife did not appear in the proceeding before the learned Family Court despite service of notice upon her, the learned Family Court has no option except to proceed ex-parte against the respondent/wife. There is no sufficient explanation from the respondent/wife for her non-appearance on the date when the ex-parte proceeding was drawn against her. Even the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was filed in belated stage and there is no explanation for its delay. Only to delay the proceeding she intentionally had not appeared in the proceeding before the learned Family Court and after lapse of a long time she filed her application for setting aside the ex-party judgment and decree. The act and action of the respondent/wife is not bonafide and the application has been allowed without considering the true aspect of the case. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 23-07-2025 may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife supported the impugned order and has submitted that the appellant may contest the case on merits for which he is having ample opportunity for the same. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Family Court and gone through the material annexed with the appeal. 7. Undisputedly the ex-parte decree has been passed against the respondent/wife on 28-07-2023 by which a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the appellant/husband. From the order 4 sheets annexed with the present appeal (Annexure - A-3) it transpires that the appellant/husband filed an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on 15-02-2023 in which notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent/wife. The order sheet dated 15-06-2023 reflects that the notice issued to the respondent/wife through registered post was served and acknowledgment received, but the notice issued through ordinary mode of service was returned back unserved and since the respondent/wife could not appear on that day, she was proceeded ex-parte and the case was fixed for recording of ex-parte evidence of the appellant/husband. On 06-07-2023 the appellant/husband submitted evidence in the form of affidavit and the appellant/husband was examined before the learned Family Court and thereafter, on 28-07-2023 the ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed. 8. From perusal of the application filed by the respondent/wife under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, it transpires that the respondent/wife came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree when she appeared on 27-03-2024 in another proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act and then she applied for certified copy and on 02-04-2024 the certified copy was received and she has filed her application on 16-04-2024. The application of the respondent/wife was supported by affidavit. Though the notice issued to the respondent/wife through registered post appears to be served upon her, but in all fairness and to decide the dispute 5 between the parties finally the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by her keeping in view the rights of the respondent/wife to put up her case before the Court before passing any order which might have affected her rights. The learned Family Court in view to decide the dispute on merits, allowed the application and restored the Civil Suit No.F41A/2023 in which we do not find any illegality keeping in view the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. The parties have every right to contest their claim before the learned Family Court. Accordingly, the first appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The parties shall bear their own cost(s). 10. Appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil