-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.153 OF 2007 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.153 OF 2007 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.153 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2007 Smt.Hiral Rupesh Salia .. Appellant. Vs. Rupesh Chimanlal Salia .. Respondent. Mr.Ganesh Gole for the appellant. Mr.S.P.More for the respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Printing of paperbook and R & P is dispensed with. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective spouses, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This appeal, filed by the wife has been directed against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court at Mumbai on 19.6.2007 by allowing Petition No.A-260 of 2006 filed by the husband. The impugned decree itself states that though the wife has caused her appearance but did not file her written statement and did not remain present when the petition was finally heard and allowed on 19.6.2007 in terms of the impugned decree by which marriage solemnised between the parties on 24.7.2005 has been annulled by decree of nullity. -2- 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife has placed the certified copy of roznama in Petition No.A-260 of 2006 and we have noted from the same that on 19.12.2006 the wife caused her appearance and filed application at Exhibit-6 praying for time for filing the written statement. The said application was allowed and the wife also filed application on 25.1.2007. She remain present before the Family Court on 25.1.2007 but filed the application for adjournment. On 4.4.2007 the petition was listed before the court and on both occasions the petition was adjourned for argument. On 10.5.2007 both the parties were present. On 29.5.2007, the wife remain absent and the petitioner-husband filed written argument. On 19.6.2007 the husband was present but the wife was absent and the court proceeded to pass the impugned decree. We have noted from the roznama that on 10.5.2007 the petition was adjourned for arguments/settlement and on the subsequent two dates the wife remain absent. It is claimed by the wife that she could not remain present initially despite service as she had delivered a baby and from the subsequent absence on 29.5.2007 and 19.6.2007. She claims absence on the ground of her ill health. As the wife did not remain present and did not file written statement despite the adjournments having been granted, the -3- Family Court accepted the averments made by the petitioner-husband and more particularly affidavit filed by way of examination in chief and allowed his petition. 4. In our considered opinion the interest of justice would be better served if the wife is granted an opportunity to file written statement and oppose the petition on merits. We also deem it appropriate that the petition filed by the husband, on its restoration, is required to be decided within a fixed period. The learned counsel for the husband fairly consented to such a course. 5. Hence the appeal is allowed and the impugned decree is quashed and set aside. Petition No.A-260 of 2006 is restored to the file of the Family Court. The parties will appear before the Family Court on 18th September, 2008 and the wife will file her written statement by 30.9.2008. We direct that the husband’s petition be heard and decided on remand by 30.11.2008. 6. Civil application does not survive and hence it is disposed off as such. -4- (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.)