Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, 9(1)

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) Ss.5, Sched. & 9(1) ---Suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, recovery of dowry articles and delivery expenses---Right to file written statement struck off---Fire incident in court premises on the date fixed for filing written statement---Effect---Where earlier date becomes in fructuous due to court not functioning due to fire incident---Right to fair trial---Scope---Facts:---In the present constitutional petition, the petitioner/defendant challenged the Family Court s order whereby his right to file a written statement was closed; the petitioner/defendant was initially proceeded ex parte and later appeared, and his application to set aside ex parte proceedings was allowed subject to costs, with the case fixed for written statement---Due to a fire incident in the building, the case was adjourned, when the written statement and costs were not submitted and the right was closed---Issue: Whether, in these circumstances, the Family Court lawfully and judiciously exercised its discretion under Section 9(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 in closing the petitioner s right to file the written statement, or whether the order was passed without proper application of mind and in derogation of the right of fair trial? ---Held: Ex-parte proceedings previously initiated against the petitioner/defendant were set-aside on 15.10.2025 and matter was adjourned to 25.10.2025 for submission of written statement and payment of costs, however, on the adjourned date due to previous outbreak fire on 16.10.2025 in the building, where court was situated, the case was adjourned for 19.11.2025, when said right had been closed---Thus, practically, 19.11.2025 was the first date fixed for filing of written statement as on the previous date fixed on 25.10.2025, court work was not possible as per showing of the court order itself that case had been adjourned due to outbreak of fire in the building---The counsel for the petitioner on the said adjourned date made a request for adjournment to comply with the previous orders, which was declined and the right of the petitioner was closed, which appeared to be prima facie done in a hasty manner and…