In Usha Devi v. Vijay Kumar, F.A. No. 28 of 2022, 2026:JHHC:26593-DB (decided 1 September 2026), a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad set aside a decree of divorce granted to a husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife had filed a written statement alleging dowry demands, assault and hospitalisation, but stopped appearing; the trial court decreed the petition without engaging with her pleaded defence. The High Court held that even where matrimonial proceedings go ex parte, the court is bound to examine the written statement on record before granting relief. Though a decision of another High Court, the principle it applies is of direct relevance to matrimonial practice everywhere, including Delhi's Family Courts.
The case
The husband, an Army jawan, petitioned for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion — his case being that the wife had refused to cohabit with him since 2015. The wife's written statement told a different story: dowry demands, physical assault, and hospitalisation. She thereafter failed to appear, the proceedings continued in her absence, and the trial court granted the divorce. On her first appeal, the Division Bench examined whether a decree could stand when the court below had never engaged with the defence she had placed on record.
What the High Court held
The written statement could not be ignored. "In a matrimonial suit, even if proceedings are conducted ex-parte due to non-appearance of a party, the court has a duty to examine the contents of a written statement."
Substance over procedure. The Bench invoked the settled maxim: "Procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice."
Result. The decree of divorce was set aside and the matter restored for adjudication that actually confronts the pleaded defence.
Why ex parte matrimonial decrees are different from ex parte money decrees
In an ordinary civil suit, non-appearance largely surrenders the field: the plaintiff proves the claim formally and takes the decree. Matrimonial jurisdiction is built differently. The statutory grounds must be affirmatively proved to the court's satisfaction; collusion and convenience divorces are policed; and the consequences — change of status, remarriage, legitimacy, maintenance — reach beyond the parties. That is why a Family Court recording ex parte evidence still cross-checks it against the record, and why a written statement alleging cruelty by the petitioner is not erased by its author's absence. The petitioner who treats an ex parte hearing as a formality builds a decree with a fault line through it.
Lessons for both sides of an ex parte situation
The Delhi angle
Delhi's Family Courts see a steady stream of ex parte matrimonial decrees — service is contested, parties relocate, and respondents disengage from proceedings they consider stacked. The Jharkhand Bench's reasoning aligns with the approach Delhi's appellate courts already take: an ex parte decree is tested on whether the ground was genuinely proved on the whole record. Practitioners drafting petitions and conducting ex parte evidence in Delhi should assume the appellate court will read the written statement even if the trial court did not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a divorce be granted just because the respondent stops appearing?
No. The petitioner must still prove the matrimonial ground — cruelty, desertion or another statutory ground — by evidence. And where the respondent has filed a written statement before absenting, the court must weigh the pleaded defence against the petitioner's evidence rather than treat the petition as unopposed.
What remedies exist against an ex parte divorce decree?
Three main routes: an application to set aside the ex parte decree before the same court showing sufficient cause for non-appearance; a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act (or Section 28 HMA) challenging the decree on merits; and in appropriate cases, review. Time limits apply to each, so speed matters.
What did the High Court find wrong with the trial court's approach?
The trial judge decreed the petition without adequately examining the wife's written statement, which alleged dowry-related brutality and hospitalisation, and without confronting the husband's own stance on reconciliation. Ignoring a pleaded defence on record rendered the decree unsustainable.
Does this principle apply in Delhi's Family Courts?
The duty flows from general principles of matrimonial adjudication — the court's obligation to satisfy itself that a ground is proved — not from any provision peculiar to Jharkhand. Delhi Family Courts proceeding ex parte likewise record petitioner evidence and are expected to test it against whatever defence appears from the record.