Telangana High Court
Taruna Sankla Taruna Boob vs Pavan Kumar Boob on 13 November, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.108 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. Akshat Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Murali Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated
01.09.2023 in O.P.No.474 of 2023 passed by the I Additional
Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (for short, 'Family Court').
3. Vide the impugned order, an ex parte decree of divorce was
passed by the Family Court under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The present appeal is filed by the wife assailing the ex parte
order primarily on the ground that the notices issued by the Family
Court were not effectively served upon the appellant/wife and that
the so called signatures that have been put in the notices sent were
not that of the appellant and seems to have been put by some
interested persons unconnected to the appellant. Lastly, it was
contended that the Family Court, even otherwise, has proceeded to
decide the family court matter in high haste, inasmuch as the
appellant/wife was proceeded ex parte on 14.08.2023 and within
four days time, i.e. on 18.08.2023, the deposition of the
respondent/husband was recorded, final arguments were also heard
on the same day and in 12 days time, the matter itself was finally
decided on 01.09.2023 when the impugned order was passed. This,
according to the appellant/wife would go to show that the entire
proceedings after the appellant had proceeded ex parte had been
concluded within 15 days time which is not normally expected of a
Family Court, particularly, when they are dealing with the petition
for divorce.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
opposes the appeal on the ground that there has been ample
evidence that is brought on record to show that the notices have
been effectively served. In addition to that, there have been
messages that have been communicated between the appellant and
the respondent so far as the pending proceedings before the Court
and yet the appellant/wife chose not to appear and in such
circumstances, the Family Court had no other option but to proceed
ex parte.
6. It was also the contention of the learned counsel that once
the Court had proceeded ex parte and there was no representation
on behalf of the appellant/wife, then, there was nothing more left
for the respondent/husband except for filing of the evidence in
chief and argue the case because there was no cross-examination or
evidence by respondents or argument to be advanced on behalf of
the respondent. The Family Court has rightly decided the matter on
unrebutted facts which have come on record.
7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, particularly the docket orders of the Family
Court, what is glaringly visible is that on 14.08.2023, the Family
Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant/wife and fixed the
matter for recording of the evidence of the respondent/husband on
18.08.2023 i.e. immediately after four days. On 18.08.2023 itself,
immediately after the evidence, the Family Court heard the final
arguments and passed the impugned order on 01.09.2023.
8. The Family Courts Act and the establishment of Family
Courts under it were with a pious intention of not to convert family
disputes and disputes arising out of marriage, more particularly,
petitions seeking dissolution of marriage as another adversary
litigation where the strict provisions of law needs to be adhered to.
Whereas, what was expected that these Family Courts shall
considering the sensitivity involved in the petition, take on
matrimonial disputes, particularly divorce petitions in a more
informal outlook rather than applying the statues, rules and
procedures stricto sensu. The parties who approach the Family
Courts with their grievances, both the petitioner as also the
respondent side, have two separate agendas : 1) who wants the
dispute to be decided as he has prayed for at the earliest and get rid
of his or her partner and 2) the second party invariably moves with
an intention of somehow patching up the differences and get the
matter resolved in an amicable atmosphere with the able assistance
of the Family Court. It is in this backdrop that the role of the
Presiding Officer of a Family Court gets enhanced with extra
powers ensuring that both the parties in a family dispute get a
reasonable opportunity of hearing as also reasonable time to enter
appearance and face the proceedings.
9. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs.
T.A. Shahida 1 wherein it was held as under, viz.,
"The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to
the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate
and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and
issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do
not mean that the Family Courts should show
undue haste or impatience, but there is a conscious
about dealing with a situation."
10. The dates reflected in the preceding paragraphs clearly
indicate that the proceeding of the ex parte against the
appellant/wife and the conclusion of F.C.O.P. took place in just
four days time. This, in the opinion of the Bench, is hasty
proceedings in a family court matter. The family court matters are
not to be treated similar to a suit for recovery or a suit for specific
performance where upon proceeding ex parte against the
respondents, the trial Court can proceed and decide the same at the
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 166
earliest. The family court disputes are always considered as
sensitive and where there is always a chance of exploring the
possibility of reconciliation between the parties and in that context
it is expected of the presiding Judge of the Family Court to take a
more pragmatic approach in deciding the petitions arising out of a
family court dispute, particularly, when it is a petition seeking for a
dissolution of marriage. The family disputes are not to be
proceeded insensitively without even exploring or waiting for a
reasonable period of time for appearance and reply/allowing the
respondents to contest the case on merits or get the dispute resolved
amicably.
11. In the instant case, there appears to be some undue haste
shown on the part of the Family Court. When we look into the
docket orders where the dates of hearing would show that after the
ex parte proceedings were drawn on 14.08.2023, the final
arguments itself were closed in twelve days time in between and
evidence also was recorded. Such undue haste is not appreciable,
particularly, from a Family Court which is pre-dominantly dealing
with family disputes between spouses. Some element of sensitivity
has to be reflected before finalizing the divorce petitions.
12. The impugned order, only on the said ground of undue haste
being reflected from the proceedings of the Family Court deserves
to be and is accordingly set aside. As a consequence, the impugned
order being setting aside/quashed, the matter stands remanded back
to the Family Court for proceeding further and deciding the case on
merits.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife is hereby directed to
enter his appearance before the Family Court on 20.11.2024. It is
further directed that the learned counsel shall also ensure filing of
the counter. No further time for filing counter shall be granted. If
the learned counsel chooses to contest the case on merits, he shall
ensure his appearance on 20.11.2024 along with the counter.
Thereafter, the Family Court is expected to proceed and conclude
the proceedings at the earliest.
14. In view thereof, the Family Court Appeal is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
__________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 13.11.2024
Note: Issue C.C. by 19.11.2024
(B/o.)Pvt
