Wife challenged rejection of her application to file a written statement in a divorce suit, which was dismissed for want of verification. The High Court held the Trial Court should have directed filing of a verification instead of rejecting, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the wife to file her written statement and contest the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010165032025
2025:GAU-AS:10034
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/298/2025
MRS SANGITA DAS RAY D/O NARAYAN DAS R/O PAMGAON, P.S. LANKA DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM PIN- 782442.
VERSUS
NITAI CH ROY S/O SUBHASH CH. ROY R/O NO. 3 KAKI TILA BAZAR 2000 BIGHA JURBIL GAON, P.S. KAKI, PIN-782442 DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, MR D DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 04.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.06.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in T.S.(D) No.87(H)/2024, barring the petitioner from filing the written statement.
3. The husband filed a divorce suit before the Court below, after filing of the divorce suit, there was a talk of compromise going on between the parties, the compromise could not be arrived at and by that time, the time limit for filing the written statement had already expired. The Trial Court directed the case to proceed Ex-parte. Thereafter, wife filed an application praying for allowing her to contest the case and to file the written statement. The said application was reportedly without any verification as required under the Code of Civil Procedure and on that very ground, the petition filed by the wife was rejected by the Trial Court.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also considered the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed.
5. This Court is of the opinion that instead of rejecting the petition filed by the wife, the Trial Court should have directed the wife to file a verification in support of her application. The Trial Court seem to be in a hurry.
Page No.# 3/3
6. The impugned order is bad in law. Therefore, the order is set aside.
7. Order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in T.S.(D) No.87(H)/2024 is set aside.
8. The petitioner wife shall be allowed to file her written statement and to contest the case, after that the Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in motion stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court could reject the wife's application to file a written statement solely for lack of verification under the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs Sangita Das Ray
Nitai Ch Roy
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
