?\ .''; ^ \^^/ Wi '—M^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition^Art. 227) No.4383 of 2010 ^i PETITIONER/: (Defendant) RESPONDENT/: Smt. Mridula Toppo aged about 34 years W/o Shri Naveen Kumar Toppo R/o Ward No.16, Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Naveen Kumar Toppo aged about 36 (Plaintiff) years S/o Late Shri R.B. Toppo R/o Quart:er No.M.I.G. 1/213, Amdi Nagar, Hudco, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr.V.G. Tamaskar, counsel forthe petitioner. None present for the respondent. No representation is made. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (15-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 18-3-2010 passed by the 2 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil Suit No.lOOA/2009, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC on behalf of the petitioner herein, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of reconciliation proceeding, the petitioner herein was absent on account of her illness and when she filed application for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte, same has been dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that petition for divorce has been filed by the respondent herein in which the Family Court has refused to set aside the order proceeding ex parte. The petitioner h6rein is not represented through counsel or legal assistant before the Family Court. Reconciliation proceeding was the date of hearing. The Family Court was under obligation to take liberal view to protect the matrimonial rights of the parties, but instead of protecting the right the Family Court has taken harsh view and thereby committed illegality. Soma 4. Advocates are not permitted before the Family Court to represent the parties. Divorce petition is pending between the parties, if complete opportunity of hearing is not provided to the petitioner herein, her matrimonial right may be prejudiced. The Family Court was under obligation to take liberal view and liberal approach in dispensing with complete justice, but instead of taking liberal approach, the Judge, Family Court has acted in harsh manner and thereby committed illegality. 5. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Order impugned dated 18-3-2010 passed by the 2 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil Suit No.lOOA/2009 is hereby set aside. Order proceeding ex parte passed by the 2" Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, against the petitioner herein is also hereby set aside. No order as to costs. F~~—— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge