Allowed

Shweta Amit Paralkar @ Shweta Ramesh Warade v. Amit Shirish Paralkar

Bombay HC3 Dec 2025FCA/73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife appealed against an ex-parte decree dissolving her marriage, explaining non-appearance by her child's ill-health and family circumstances. Holding she was denied a fair trial, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded for trial from the stage of cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Family Court for trial from stage of cross-examination; trial to conclude within six months.

Shweta Amit Paralkar @ Shweta Ramesh Warade Vs Amit… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:35262-DB

¶2

¶3

73.2025FCA.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

969 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2025

¶6

SHWETA AMIT PARALKAR @ SHWETA RAMESH WARADE VERSUS

¶7

AMIT SHIRISH PARALKAR

¶8

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Ade R.B. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sumant S. Kulkarni

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3446 OF 2025 IN FCA/73/2025

¶11

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND

¶12

VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 3^rd DECEMBER, 2025.

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

. By this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appellant - wife challenges the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A-540/2021, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondenthusband for dissolution of marriage.

¶16

It is case of the appellant-wife that though she appeared in the petition filed by the husband and filed written statement, subsequently as she could not appear due to ill-health of her son, "no cross" order was passed against her. She filed application for recalling of "no cross" order, which came to be turned down by the Family Court. This order was not challenged by her due to heavy workload in office, ill-health of her child and as her maternal aunt, who brought her up, had undergone operation. Therefore, the trial was conducted in her absence and Family Court has allowed the petition ex-

¶17

¶18

73.2025FCA.odt

¶19

parte and dissolved the marriage.

¶20

Learned Advocate for the husband vehemently opposed the appeal stating that no sufficient ground is made out by the wife to set aside the ex-parte order. The Family Court was constrained to decide the petition ex-parte as wife failed to appear and cross-examine the husband and enter into witness box. He, therefore, submits that the wife has to blame herself for ex-parte decision in the matter. According to him, no sufficient ground is, therefore, made out by the wife to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶21

Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for respondent at length. Perused the record.

¶22

Admittedly, the wife has neither conducted crossexamination of the husband nor entered the witness box to lead evidence. Therefore, fair trial is denied to her may be due to her fault, but the reasons for such non-appearance i.e. ill-health of child and operation of maternal aunt appeal to us. The wife needs to be given fair opportunity to defend the petition filed by husband. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶23

In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) Family Court Appeal is allowed.

¶26

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A-540/2021 dated 19.09.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

3 73.2025FCA.odt

¶28

(iii) The matter is relegated to the Family Court for decision afresh. The trial should be conducted from the stage of crossexamination of the husband. The trial be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶29

(iv) The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶30

The Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.)

¶32

sga

Shweta Amit Paralkar @ Shweta Ramesh Warade v. Amit Shirish Paralkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Amit Paralkar @ Shweta Ramesh Warade v. Amit Shirish Paralkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Dnyaneshwar Harale Prop. Shriniwas Biofuels vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushilabai Vishnupant Sonwane and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sanjay Shenpadu Desale Vs the State of Maharashtrat Thruogh Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mumbai 32

Suman Anant Anand Bhalerao Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan Mumbai and Others

Satish Eknath Tayade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shweta Amit Paralkar @ Shweta Ramesh Warade Vs Amit Shirish Paralkar