Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions arising from matrimonial proceedings between Mr. Harmeet Singh (husband) and Mrs. Juliet Kukreja (wife) in G and WC No.71/2020 pending before the 1st Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. The husband filed WP No.10091/2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Family Court's order dated 06.03.2024 which dismissed his application IA No.8 for setting aside an ex-parte order. The wife filed WP No.19407/2024 under Articles 226 and 227 seeking certiorari to quash the same order. The Family Court had initially passed an ex-parte order against the husband, who claimed he was not served and had no knowledge of the proceedings. He filed IA No.8 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order. The Family Court, by order dated 06.03.2024, allowed the application, set aside the ex-parte order, restored the petition to file, and directed fresh notice to the wife. The husband was aggrieved by the condition of restoring the petition to file, while the wife challenged the setting aside of the ex-parte order. The High Court heard both petitions together. The court analyzed the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the concept of sufficient cause. It held that the Family Court had correctly exercised its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte order as the husband had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The court also noted that the order was interlocutory and did not warrant interference under Article 227. Consequently, the husband's petition was allowed in part, setting aside the condition of restoring the petition to file, and the wife's petition was dismissed. The court directed the Family Court to proceed with the matter afresh after issuing notice to both parties.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Ex-parte Order - Setting Aside - Sufficient Cause - The Family Court set aside an ex-parte order dated 06.03.2024 in G and WC No.71/2020, restoring the petition to file and directing fresh notice to the wife. The husband had filed IA No.8 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, claiming he was not served and had no knowledge of the proceedings. The court found sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte order. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Article 226 - The wife's petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the order setting aside ex-parte was dismissed as the order was interlocutory and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The High Court held that the Family Court's discretion was properly exercised. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the petition to file, and whether the wife's challenge to that order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed WP No.10091/2024 in part, setting aside the condition of restoring the petition to file, and dismissed WP No.19407/2024. The Family Court's order dated 06.03.2024 was modified to the extent that the petition shall proceed from the stage of notice to the husband, and the Family Court shall issue fresh notice to both parties and proceed afresh.
Law Points
- Ex-parte order
- setting aside ex-parte decree
- sufficient cause
- restoration of petition
- fresh notice
- Family Court Act
- CPC Order 9 Rule 13
- Article 227
- Article 226
