Wife Present in Court, Yet Proceeded Against Ex Parte: Uttarakhand HC Sets Aside Family Court Order
The Uttarakhand High Court reversed an ex parte order against a wife who appeared before the Family Court but was denied time to file her written statement in divorce proceedings.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit, on 23 July 2026 set aside an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar that had closed the right of defence of the appellant-wife and directed divorce proceedings to continue ex parte against her. The court held that a wife who was physically present before the Family Court and had sought time to file her written statement could not be treated as unwilling to participate in the proceedings. Expeditious disposal of matrimonial cases, the bench reasoned, cannot come at the cost of a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Divorce Petition Transferred to Family Court, Haridwar
The marriage between Pallavi Dhiman and Nikhil Sharma was solemnised on 30 April 2015. Nikhil Sharma subsequently filed proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Those proceedings were transferred by the Supreme Court to the Family Court, Haridwar, where they were registered as O.S. No. 179 of 2024.
During the pendency of those proceedings, the Family Court by order dated 30 May 2026 awarded Pallavi Dhiman “₹ 5,000/- towards litigation expenses and ₹ 200/- as travelling expenses per hearing.” That award was relevant to what followed on 1 July 2026.
What Happened on 1 July 2026
Pallavi Dhiman appeared before the Family Court on 1 July 2026 and sought further time to file her written statement. She explained that the litigation expenses awarded by the court had not yet been paid by her husband, making it difficult for her to effectively defend the proceedings.
The Family Court rejected her request. It closed her right to file a defence and directed the matrimonial proceedings to continue ex parte against her. That order prompted the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Before the High Court, counsel for Nikhil Sharma pointed out that the litigation expenses of ₹ 5,000/- along with travelling expenses of ₹ 200/- had in fact been tendered or deposited on 1 July 2026 itself. On that basis, the respondent argued that the appellant's plea of non-payment lacked substance and the Family Court had committed no error.
Whether Presence in Court Precluded an Ex Parte Order
The central question before the Division Bench was whether the Family Court was justified in closing the appellant's right of defence when she had personally appeared and sought time, irrespective of whether the litigation expenses had by then been paid.
Justice Pankaj Purohit, writing for the bench, noted that it was not in dispute that Pallavi Dhiman was present before the Family Court on 1 July 2026 and had sought time to file her written statement. Her presence itself, the bench held, showed she was not unwilling to participate in the proceedings.
The bench then addressed the respondent's argument about same-day payment of expenses. Even accepting that ₹ 5,000/- and ₹ 200/- were tendered on 1 July 2026, the court held that the appellant ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity thereafter to file her defence. Payment on the very day of the hearing, the bench reasoned, could not be treated as curing the situation on the spot so as to justify immediately closing her right of defence.
The bench also addressed a broader point: directions for expeditious disposal of matrimonial proceedings, which courts regularly issue, do not authorise the denial of a reasonable hearing to either party. Speed of disposal and fairness of procedure are not mutually exclusive obligations. Closing the appellant's right of defence and proceeding ex parte in these circumstances was, the court concluded, not justified.
Order
The Division Bench allowed Appeal From Order No. 270 of 2026. The impugned order dated 1 July 2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in O.S. No. 179 of 2024 was set aside.
Pallavi Dhiman was granted 15 days from 23 July 2026 to file her written statement before the Family Court. The Family Court was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously thereafter, without granting unnecessary adjournments. The pending application was disposed of.