Expeditious Disposal Of Divorce Case Can't Mean Denial Of Fair Hearing: Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Against Wife

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that “the direction for expeditious disposal of matrimonial proceedings cannot be construed to mean that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be denied to either party”. Holding the above, the High Court set aside the Family Court, Haridwar's order where the appellant-wife's right to file defence was closed and the matrimonial proceedings were directed to proceed ex parte against her.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit held that since the wife had appeared before the Family Court and sought time to file her written statement, it could not be said that she was unwilling to participate in the proceedings. The Court observed that she ought to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file her defence before her right was closed. 

The appeal was preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order dated July 1, 2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, whereby the appellant-wife's right to file her written statement was closed and the matrimonial proceedings instituted by the respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act were directed to proceed ex parte. 

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the Family Court had erred in proceeding ex parte despite her appearance on the date fixed. It was submitted that although she had sought further time to file her written statement, she was unable to effectively defend the proceedings because the litigation expenses awarded in her favour had not been paid by the respondent-husband. Consequently, it was argued that closing her right to file a defence was unjustified. 

Opposing the appeal, the respondent-husband submitted that the litigation expenses of ₹5,000 along with travelling expenses of ₹200 had been tendered on July 1, 2026 itself. It was therefore argued that the appellant's plea that she could not file her written statement due to non-payment of litigation expenses was without substance and that the Family Court had committed no error in passing the impugned order. 

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court noted that:

“…this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order warrants interference. Admittedly, appellant-wife was present before learned Family Court on 01.07.2026 and had sought further time to file her written statement on the ground that litigation expenses awarded to her had not been paid. Thus, it cannot be said that she was unwilling to participate in the proceedings. Even if the litigation expenses of 5,000/-, along with travelling expenses of 200/-, were tendered by respondent-husband on 01.07.2026 itself, appellant-wife ought to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity thereafter to file her defence.

The direction for expeditious disposal of matrimonial proceedings cannot be construed to mean that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be denied to either party. In these circumstances, closing the appellant's right of defence and proceeding ex parte against her was not justified”.

Holding the above, the High Court thus opined that the Family Court was not justified in closing the appellant's right of defence and directing the proceedings to continue ex parte. 

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and the appellant-wife was granted due time to file her written statement. The Family Court was further directed to proceed with the matrimonial case expeditiously thereafter, without granting unnecessary adjournments. 

Case: Pallavi Dhiman Versus Nikhil Sharma [Appeal From Order No. 270 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order