Ex parte decree set aside for violation of natural justice and non-compliance with prior judicial directions for virtual hearing.

The respondent (husband) filed an application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the Family Court, Satna, alleging the appellant (wife) deserted the matrimonial home on 23.11.2020

The appellant moved an application under Section 24 of the CPC (MCC No. 229/2022) to transfer the case; while the transfer was not granted, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court directed the Family Court to permit her to appear, file documents, and undergo examination/cross-examination via virtual mode

Despite this order, after the appellant’s counsel pleaded "no instructions," the Family Court proceeded ex parte without notifying the appellant of her right to virtual participation

On 18.08.2023, the Family Court granted the decree of restitution ex parte

The appellant's subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed on 29.08.2024, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the Family Court erred in passing an ex parte decree without complying with the High Court’s directions regarding virtual appearance and the principles of natural justice

2. Whether an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights is sustainable when the defendant was not afforded an opportunity to produce evidence despite specific High Court directions for virtual proceedings

The Court applied Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governing the restitution of conjugal rights

It emphasized the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem)

Procedurally, the Court relied on the High Court's inherent and supervisory powers to ensure compliance with its own prior directions issued in transfer petitions (Section 24 of the CPC) regarding electronic filings and virtual hearings

The High Court observed that while the Family Court took the High Court's order (MCC No. 229/2022) on record, it failed to implement its spirit

Once the appellant’s counsel pleaded "no instructions," the trial court was duty-bound to inform the appellant directly, especially given the High Court's specific mandate allowing her virtual participation

By proceeding ex parte without facilitating the virtual mode for evidence or filing documents, the Family Court deprived the appellant of a fair trial

The court reasoned that the failure to provide the appellant an opportunity to contest the case electronically—as specifically permitted by a superior court—constituted a serious violation of natural justice and rendered the impugned judgment legally unsustainable

The court held that the ex parte decree was improper due to non-compliance with the High Court’s specific directions for virtual proceedings

The case was remitted to the Family Court, Satna, for a fresh decision after affording the appellant an ample opportunity of hearing

Both parties were directed to appear before the trial court (physically or virtually) on 23.06.2026