SANDEEP BASNET Vs. VANSHITA NEE BASANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to quash the impugned order dtd. 6/10/2025, passed by Family Court, Rishikesh, annexure-5, whereby the learned trial court has set-aside the ex-parte order dtd. 9/6/2025.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an application under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent, seeking to declare their marriage dtd. 2/1/2019 as void on the ground of fraud, and for cancellation of the marriage registration certificate dtd. 25/1/2020. Thereafter, on 9/6/2025, the Family Court, through a detailed order, proceeded ex-parte against the respondent, and the matter was listed for the petitioner's ex-parte evidence on the next date of hearing. On 13/6/2025 and 30/6/2025, the respondent did not appear, and the petitioner closed his evidence on 30/6/2025. Subsequently, on 10/7/2025, after two dates, the respondent appeared before the court without counsel and submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dtd. 9/6/2025. The court appointed a counsel for the respondent through legal aid. The petitioner thereafter filed objections to the respondent's application. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, vide its order dtd. 6/10/2025, allowed the said application of the respondent and set-aside the ex-parte order dtd. 9/6/2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court, vide its impugned order, has overlooked the essential ingredients of the respondent's application, which was not filed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further submits that the reasons stated in the said application were false and incorrect, which the Court failed to appreciate and nevertheless proceeded to give its reasoning, which ought not to have been considered. It is further submitted that the Family Court also failed to take into account the fact that the respondent had already appeared before the Court earlier and had deliberately chosen not to participate in the subsequent proceedings.