An ex parte decree passed without effective service and meaningful opportunity of hearing is unsustainable.

The parties, a Muslim husband and wife, were married on 15 January 2021 and had a daughter born on 14 November 2021.

The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home with the child on 23 May 2022 and declined to return despite efforts at reconciliation, DLSA mediation, and a legal notice.

He consequently filed Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Family Court proceeded ex parte against the wife on 9 January 2025 and thereafter decreed restitution of conjugal rights by judgment dated 12 March 2025 and decree dated 25 March 2025.

The wife challenged the decree under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, contending that she had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing.

The High Court condoned the 82-day delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Despite service of notice in the appeal, the husband did not appear and the matter proceeded in his absence.

Whether the Family Court validly proceeded ex parte against the wife after taking effective steps to secure her appearance and complying with the applicable procedure for service of notice?

Whether the ex parte judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights were legally sustainable when the record did not disclose a proper basis for concluding that notice had been duly served upon the wife?

Whether the matter should be remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication from the stage of notice?

The appeal was maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, while the original petition concerned restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.

Under procedural law, a court must take effective steps in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the appearance of the contesting party before proceeding ex parte; service of notice is not a mere formality but safeguards the right to be heard.

In Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held that procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice where no serious prejudice is caused.

Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155, emphasises fairness and the discovery of truth in adjudication.

The Court also referred to Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Rajudas v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 43, regarding the primacy of truth and purposive interpretation.

An order is perverse where it is unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, procedurally irregular, or so irrational that no reasonable judicial authority could have reached it, as explained in Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206, and Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC 197.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s orders and the trial record, particularly the order dated 9 January 2025.

Although that order stated that notices had been issued through Nazarat, registered post, speed post, and newspaper publication, it did not disclose any service report establishing that the wife had actually been served.

The record also did not show the evidentiary basis for the Family Court’s conclusion that all possible steps had been taken to secure her appearance.

Since proceeding ex parte affects a party’s substantive right to contest the matrimonial claim, the Family Court was required to demonstrate compliance with the prescribed procedure rather than mechanically record service and fix the matter for ex parte hearing.

The absence of a proper service record deprived the wife of a meaningful opportunity to present her case, including her asserted reasons for not wishing to resume cohabitation.

The High Court therefore treated the Family Court’s approach as a procedural violation causing serious prejudice and characterised the resulting judgment as perverse and unsustainable.

The judgment dated 12 March 2025 and decree dated 25 March 2025 in Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 2023 were accordingly quashed and set aside.

The matrimonial case was revived from the stage of notice for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

The wife undertook to appear before the Family Court on 29 September 2026, and the Family Court was directed to issue notice to the husband and decide the matter expeditiously on merits.

The appeal was disposed of, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.