Disposed¶26

Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy v. Barnali Sarkar

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2025CRP(IO)/502/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; CRP(IO)/502/2025; Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy v. Barnali Sarkar; Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita; order dated 10.12.2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order 8 Rule 1 CPC; Order XXXIIA(3) CPC; 90 days written statement; ex-parte hearing; matrimonial suit; divorce; compromise talks between husband and wife; cost Rs. 5000; Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025; District Judge Sonitpur.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent side; petitioner permitted to file written statement in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 on 11.12.2025, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- cost to the respondent wife as a condition precedent for acceptance of the written statement. ¶26

Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy Vs Barnali Sarkar — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (defendant-husband) should be permitted to file his written statement beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 in the matrimonial suit, notwithstanding the trial court's order rejecting further time and fixing the suit for ex-parte hearing.

¶19

Court's answer

The 90-day time limit prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 for filing of written statement is not an absolute outer limit, more so in matrimonial cases.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Under Order XXXIIA(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in cases involving family disputes it is incumbent on the Court to endeavour that the parties reach an amicable settlement.

¶22

Key takeaways

The ground for failing to file the written statement within the prescribed 90-day period ought not to have been brushed aside totally by the trial court; opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to file the written statement.ratio¶23
The petitioner is allowed to file written statement in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 on 11.12.2025 before the Ld. Trial Court, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5000/-.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP(IO)/502/2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.08.2025 of the Ld. District Judge, Sonitpur in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 (divorce suit filed by the wife), whereby the petitioner-husband's prayer for further time to file written statement was rejected and the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte. Held: the 90-day period under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for filing written statement is not an absolute outer limit, more so in matrimonial cases; under Order XXXIIA(3) CPC the Court is bound to endeavour amicable settlement in family disputes; the ongoing compromise talks between the spouses ought not to have been brushed aside by the trial court. Petitioner permitted to file written statement on 11.12.2025 subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- cost to the respondent wife as a condition precedent for acceptance. Petition disposed of without notice to the respondent side.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010265902025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/502/2025

¶6

SHARNA KAMAL ROY @ SWARNA KAMAL ROY SON OF SRI SHANTI RANJAN ROY,RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.4,VILLAGESHARADA COLONY,ANIRBAN PATH, P.O. GOTA NAGAR,P.S. JALUKBARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM-781011.MOBILE NO.9387555239

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

BARNALI SARKAR

¶9

W/O SHARNA KAMAL ROY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, HUTKHOLA, MIZIBARI, P.O. ALISINGA, P.S. DHEKIAJULI, SONITPUR, ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 9387555239

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T BARUAH, MS A DAS

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 10.12.2025

¶15

Heard Ms. A Das, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

filed by the petitioner Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy impugning the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Sonitpur in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 whereby the prayer for grant of further time for filing of written statement by the present petitioner was rejected and the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against the respondent.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. She further states that the respondent has filed suit for divorce which was before the Court of Ld. District Judge, Sonitpur which was registered as Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025. She submits that as the petitioner and the respondent are related to each other as husband and wife, there was a talk of compromise going on between both the parties and therefore, there was delay in filing of written statement. She submits that however, the Ld. Trial Court ignoring this aspect that the suit before the Court was a matrimonial suit, strictly construed the provisions of order and fixed the case for ex-parte hearing against the petitioner in spite of the fact that it was pleaded by the petitioner before the Court that a talk of compromise was going on between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court ought to have given extended time to the petitioner beyond the period of 90(ninety) days considering the fact that the suit between the parties is a matrimonial suit and a talk of compromise was going on between the parties. She submits that now the petitioner is ready to file written statement on any date directed by the date on any terms and conditions. She further submits that the Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 is fixed before the Ld. Trial Court tomorrow i.e. on 11.12.2025 and the petitioner is willing and ready to file written statement tomorrow

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

itself subject to any conditions imposed by the Court.

¶22

Though Order 8 Rule 1 prescribes a time limit for filing of written statement by the defendant within 90(ninety) days of receipt of summons by the defendant. However, the time limit so prescribed is not a absolute outer limit, more so in matrimonial cases. Under Order XXXIIA(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is incumbent on the Court to try, in cases involving family disputes to make a endeavors so that party reaches an amicable settlement amongst themselves.

¶23

Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ground for failing to file written statement by the husband within prescribed period of 90(ninety) days ought not to have been brushed aside totally by the Ld. Trial Court and that opportunity ought to have been given to the present petitioner to file the written statement.

¶24

As the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to file written statement in the aforesaid matrimonial case. Hence, the petitioner is allowed to file written statement in Title Suit (M) Case No. 69/2025 tomorrow i.e. on 11.12.2025 before the Ld. Trial Court subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

¶25

It is made clear that payment of cost shall be a condition preceded before acceptance of the said written statement by the Ld. Trial Court. The Cost, if deposited, shall be paid to the respondent wife.

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent side.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy v. Barnali Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharna Kamal Roy @ Swarna Kamal Roy v. Barnali Sarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Kumar Jalan Vs Smt. Smreety Jalan

Sri Prasanna Talukdar and Anr. Vs Sri Joyram Das and 3 Ors.

Babu Ali Vs the State of Assam

Dolee Kalita Vs Manaj Kumar Baishya

Muzir Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 42 Ors.

Mojibur Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam