After One Medically Documented High-Blood-Pressure Absence, Chhattisgarh HC Gives Divorce-Seeking Husband One Final Chance To Present Evidence

The petitioner, who was pursuing a divorce application before the Family Court, Raipur, challenged the order dated 22 October 2026 forfeiting his right to lead evidence and fixing the case for the respondent’s evidence

The case had been transferred from the Family Court, Durg, with a direction to conclude proceedings within four months of receipt of the record

The petitioner’s evidence was fixed for 22 October 2026. On that date, he sought an adjournment, stating that he was suffering from high blood pressure and had been advised to rest; he supported his application with an outpatient record dated 21 October 2026 and a medical certificate

The Family Court rejected the application and forfeited his right to lead evidence

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may intervene where a subordinate court’s order suffers from illegality or jurisdictional error

A party’s right to lead evidence is an important facet of effectively prosecuting or defending a civil proceeding and should not be denied so as to prevent determination on the merits, unless the party’s conduct warrants that consequence.

Although a court may regulate its proceedings and refuse unnecessary adjournments, forfeiture of the right to lead evidence must be exercised cautiously and judiciously, having regard to the objective of adjudicating the matter on its merits.

The petitioner’s absence on the date fixed for his evidence was a solitary default, and his adjournment request was supported by medical records indicating that he was unwell

The record did not show repeated adjournment requests or negligence in prosecuting the case

In those circumstances, forfeiting his right to lead evidence would substantially impair his opportunity to establish his divorce case and was disproportionate to the default.

The High Court therefore found the order legally unsustainable and considered that a further opportunity, subject to costs and a strict no-further-adjournment condition, would serve the ends of justice

The petitioner was permitted to lead evidence on the next date fixed, 12 November 2026, on payment of ₹3,000 to the respondent, and was directed not to seek any further adjournment for that purpose.

The Family Court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law on its merits