In a significant ruling highlighting the importance of fair hearing, the Bombay High Court has set aside a Thane Family Court's ex-parte divorce decree passed against a woman who had not filed her written statement on time. The Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil delivered the judgment on October 1, 2025, in the appeal filed by Riya Suralkar (née Gloria Rebello) against her husband Rahul Suralkar.
Background
The couple had married on September 18, 2017, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, at the Registrar’s office in Bandra, Mumbai. A few years later, their relationship soured, and Rahul approached the Family Court, Thane, alleging cruelty by his wife. He sought divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Act.
The wife, though served with summons, did not file a written statement within the stipulated time. The Family Court, therefore, proceeded without her version, and when she continued to remain absent, her right to present evidence and argue the case was closed. In November 2024, the Family Court granted the husband a divorce decree solely based on his unchallenged testimony.
Court's Observations
Hearing the wife’s appeal, Justice Sandesh D. Patil, writing for the Bench, was unsparing in his criticism of the Family Court’s approach.
"The trial court," the Bench noted, "disposed of the matter in a casual and mechanical manner, decreeing divorce merely because the wife did not appear or contest."
The judges emphasized that even in ex-parte proceedings, courts are duty-bound to independently evaluate the petitioner’s evidence rather than accept it as gospel truth. “Merely because the proceeding has been ordered to be decided ex-parte does not mean it must be decreed automatically,” the court remarked.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1998), the Bench reiterated that a court must still apply its mind, assess evidence, and determine whether the petitioner has genuinely proved the allegations especially in sensitive matrimonial disputes.
"The Family Court," Justice Patil observed, "did not assign any reasons as to how cruelty was proved. The issue was answered hurriedly, almost mechanically, without analysis or reasoning."
Arguments Before the High Court
Advocate Ms. Priyanka Desai, appearing for the appellant-wife, argued that the lower court’s decision violated principles of natural justice, as it failed to evaluate the husband’s allegations objectively. She contended that even if the wife did not file a written statement, the court could not grant divorce by default.
On the other hand, Advocate Ms. Pushpa Verma, representing the respondent-husband, maintained that the wife had consistently chosen to remain absent despite opportunities. "Her conduct delayed the proceedings, and the trial court had no choice but to decide ex-parte," she argued. Verma also cited earlier judgments-Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) and K. Srinivasa Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013)-to support the claim of cruelty.
However, the High Court distinguished those precedents, pointing out that they involved fully contested matters with clear findings on facts, unlike the present case which lacked judicial reasoning.
Decision
After a detailed review of the record, the Division Bench quashed and set aside the Thane Family Court's judgment and decree dated November 5, 2024. The matter was remanded back for a fresh trial from the stage of filing of the wife’s written statement.
The High Court directed that Riya Suralkar be allowed to submit her written statement within 30 days, after which the Family Court must frame issues, permit both sides to present evidence, and decide the case on merits.
Interestingly, during the hearing, it was disclosed that Rahul had remarried while the appeal was pending. The Bench, however, made it clear that the remarriage would not validate a "perverse and unreasoned" decree.
"The fact that the respondent-husband has remarried," the court noted, "cannot deter us from quashing a judgment found to be contrary to law."
Concluding the order, the Bench directed the Family Court to dispose of the matter within nine months, ensuring both parties get a fair opportunity to be heard.
"No costs," the judges said, ending a judgment that strongly reaffirmed the value of due process even in seemingly one-sided cases.
Case Title: Riya Suralkar vs. Rahul Suralkar
Case Number: Family Court Appeal No. 101 of 2025
