Bombay High Court: In the present appeal, the wife challenged the divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Thane, which allowed the husband’s petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging cruelty. The decree was granted ex parte, solely on the husband’s unchallenged testimony, as the wife failed to file her written statement or lead evidence.
The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, held that the Trial Court should have analysed the husband’s evidence and recorded its findings on the issue of cruelty, but instead answered the issue solely on the ground that the wife was absent. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court ignored the well-settled legal position that proceedings are not to be decreed automatically merely because a party did not lead evidence or file a written statement.
Background:
The case arose from a petition filed by the husband seeking divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging that the wife had treated him with cruelty after their marriage was solemnised on 18-09-2017 at the Registrar of Marriages, Bandra, Mumbai. The Family Court at Thane allowed the husband’s petition and passed a judgment, decree and order dated 05-11-2024, dissolving the marriage. Aggrieved by this, the wife filed the present appeal.
The wife initially appeared before the Court but failed to file her written statement within the prescribed time. Consequently, an order was passed on 10-03-2023 to proceed without her written statement. She thereafter remained absent, did not lead any evidence, and by orders dated 22-08-2024 and 04-10-2024, her evidence was closed and her right to argue was forfeited.
The Family Court framed an issue on whether the husband had proved that the wife treated him with cruelty after marriage. The Court answered the issue in the affirmative and passed the judgment on 05-11-2024, granting a decree of divorce. The wife, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed the present appeal challenging the legality and reasoning of the Trial Court’s decision.
The wife argued that the judgment was contrary to the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, and that the Trial Court failed to assess the husband’s evidence on its own merits. It was submitted that the decree could not be granted merely because the wife did not appear or file her statement. In response, the husband supported the Trial Court’s findings, stating that the wife deliberately avoided the proceedings, and the husband’s unchallenged testimony was sufficient to justify the decree.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that although the Trial Court held that the wife treated the husband with cruelty, it surprisingly did not provide any reasons as to how it reached that conclusion. The Court noted that the entire issue was disposed of hurriedly and in a casual manner. The only reason cited by the Trial Court for finding cruelty was that the testimony of the husband went unchallenged. The Trial Court went on to hold that the unchallenged testimony of the husband proved the contentions made by him in the petition.
The Court emphasised that the Trial Court, without discussing the case of the husband and without giving any reasons as to why the husband’s case appeared to be true and correct, decreed the petition solely on the premise that the wife remained absent. The Court further noted that the Trial Court was completely oblivious to the legal position that merely because the proceeding was ordered to be decided ex parte, it did not mean that it should be decreed automatically. However, the Trial Court lost sight of the fact that even if a party did not file a written statement, the contentions of the plaintiff/petitioner could not be accepted as gospel truth and must be independently analysed on merits.
The Court highlighted the judgment of the Supreme Court Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, which held that even in the absence of a written statement, the Trial Court cannot automatically allow the proceeding and must consider the petitioner’s case on its own merits.
The Court further observed that the Trial Court disposed of the case in a casual and mechanical manner, decreeing the proceeding only because the wife did not appear before the Court. The Court emphasised that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to record its findings based on the evidence led by the husband. The Trial Court should have analysed the husband’s evidence and, after due consideration, recorded its findings on the issue of cruelty, but instead answered the issue solely on the ground that the wife was absent.
The Court noted that the Trial Court was influenced by the fact that the wife neither filed a written statement nor led any evidence. However, the Trial Court ignored the well-settled legal position that proceedings are not to be decreed automatically merely because a party did not lead evidence or file a written statement. The Court emphasised that there must be a finding and application of mind by the Trial Court to determine whether the wife, despite her non-participation, made out a case for grant of decree. Thus, the Trial Court, unmindful of the legal position, dissolved the marriage by passing an almost cryptic and unreasoned order, without assigning any reasons whatsoever while decreeing the proceeding.
Thus, the Court held that the judgment, decree and order dated 05-11-2024 passed by the Family Court, Thane deserved to be quashed and set aside, and the matter required to be remitted back for fresh consideration from the stage of filing of the written statement by the wife. The proceeding was restored to its original file.
The Court concluded that the wife was permitted to file her written statement within one month from the date of uploading of the order. The Trial Court was directed to frame issues and allow both parties to lead evidence, including cross-examination. It was further noted that although the husband had remarried during the pendency of the appeal, this would not deter it from setting aside the judgment, which was found to be perverse and contrary to settled legal principles.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the judgment and directed the Trial Court to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within nine months. Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
[Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar, Family Court Appeal No. 101 of 2025, decided on 01-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandesh Patil
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Priyanka Desai with Tvisha Desai & Janhavi Pise i/b The Fort Circle Advocates & Solicitors
For the Respondent: Pushpa Verma with Moiez Shaikh