••^•^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: APPELLANT RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA 8s HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR, JJ. F.A.M.No. 46/2010 VERSUS Indrakumar Sahu, S/o Shri Jaglal Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o Devri, (D) P.0. Kharsuni, Thana-Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. Smt. Shakuntala Sahu, W/o Indrakumar Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Bourid, Tahsil & Thana-Arang, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. APEEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTLACT 1984. Present:- Ms. Vasudha Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedon 07/07/2010) The following iudgment of the Court was passed by T.P. Sharma, J:- 1. By this appeal appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 16/3/10 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg in civil suit No. 94A/09 whereby learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg has dismissed the suit of the appellant. ^.' ^- Order is impugned on the ground that without providing an opportunity of adducing evidence, Court below has dismissed the suit and thereby committed an illegality. As per memo of appeal and order impugned suit between the parties under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was pending before learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Durg for trial on 16/3/10 appellant was present but his witnesses were not present, his request for adjournment for producing witnesses was denied by the Court on the ground that two opportunities has already been given to the appellant and finally suit was dismissed. Ms. Vasudha Mishra, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the respondent are heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although appellant was under obligation to produce his witnesses on the date ofhearing but his witnesses were not present on that day, request was made for adjournment but same was refused by the Court below and Court below has dismissed the suit without providing any opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submits that appellant is in habit of delaying the case, two opportunities have been provided to appellant for adducing the evidence but reasons best known to the appellant, appellant has not examined any witnesses even on 16/3/10 he was present in Court but he has not examined himself as a witness in support of his claim, therefore, no option was left to the Court except the dismiss the suit. 7. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the material available on record and order impugned. Technically the order impugned is just and proper but this is family dispute and Family Courts have been established to resolve the family dispute. No specific procedure has been provided in the Family Court Act for trial of the case and Family Court are required to lay down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit of proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other party. 8. In these circumstances, Court below was under obligation to provide at least reasonable opportunities before passing any coercive order. We are of the considered view that order impugned is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted r'- :-^TS- ^' back to the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg for providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to decide the case "-. afresh. Parties are directed to present before the Court below on 4/8/2010 for further progress of the case. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge