Denial of an opportunity to lead evidence violates natural justice and warrants remand.

The husband petitioned for divorce, alleging cruelty and desertion.

The wife denied the allegations and raised, among other matters, claims of dowry demands and inadequate support during the birth of their premature child.

The husband examined himself and two witnesses and produced documents; the wife did not enter the witness box, although photographs were marked after being confronted to the husband.

The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi, allowed the divorce petition on 17 February 2024.

On appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife argued that she had not been given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence.

1. Whether the Trial Court failed to provide the wife a sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, thereby committing an error in passing the decree.

2. What order or decree should follow.

Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for an appeal from specified decrees and orders under the Act; the wife invoked it to challenge the divorce decree.

The Court applied the principle of natural justice that a party must have a sufficient opportunity to present evidence before the dispute is determined; denial of that opportunity may require the decision to be set aside and the matter reconsidered.

On reviewing the record, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court had provided the wife no opportunity to lead evidence.

Because that omission denied her a fair opportunity to present her case, the Court found a violation of natural justice warranting remand.

It therefore refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the divorce petition.

The matrimonial case was restored to the Trial Court, which was directed to allow the wife to lead evidence, hear the parties, and decide the matter afresh.

The husband was reserved liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence, and all contentions were left open.

The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 23 November 2026.