Dismissed¶21

Sandeep Basnet v. Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi

Uttarakhand HC7 Nov 2025WPMS/3099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-parte order set aside; Order IX Rule 7 CPC application allowed by Family Court Rishikesh; writ challenge dismissed in limine; Section 12(1)(c) Hindu Marriage Act 1955 annulment for fraud; marriage dated 02.01.2019; marriage registration certificate dated 25.01.2020 cancellation; judicial discretion non-interference in writ jurisdiction; liberal construction of setting-aside provisions; Uttarakhand High Court Nainital; Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3099 of 2025; Sandeep Basnet v. Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi; Pankaj Purohit J.; decided 07 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Family Court, Rishikesh. ¶16

Sandeep Basnet Vs Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 of the Family Court, Rishikesh — setting aside the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025 — suffered from illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error such that it should be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Family Court, Rishikesh.

¶16

Key takeaways

The discretion exercised by the Family Court, upon considering the reasons stated in the respondent's application and in the interest of justice, was judicially exercised and cannot be interfered with in the limited scope of writ jurisdiction.ratio¶19
The provisions relating to setting aside of an ex-parte order are to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice and afford the parties an opportunity to contest the matter on merits rather than deciding it ex-parte.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Pankaj Purohit, J., oral) dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging the Family Court, Rishikesh order dated 06.10.2025, whereby the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025 — passed in the petitioner's Section 12(1)(c) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 application seeking declaration of his marriage dated 02.01.2019 void for fraud and cancellation of the marriage registration certificate dated 25.01.2020 — was set aside on the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. Held: the respondent appeared soon after the ex-parte proceedings were initiated and promptly sought setting aside; the Family Court considered her reasons and, in the interest of justice, judicially exercised its discretion to allow the application; such judicially exercised discretion is not open to interference in the limited scope of writ jurisdiction; provisions for setting aside ex-parte orders are to be construed liberally to advance the cause of justice; and the petitioner demonstrated no material irregularity or statutory contravention. Pending application, if any, disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:UHC:9815

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3099 of 2025 07 November, 2025

Sandeep Basnet

--Petitioner

Versus

Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi

¶8

--Respondent

¶9

Presence:Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to quash the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, passed by Family Court, Rishikesh, annexure-5, whereby the learned trial court has set-aside the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent, seeking to declare their marriage dated 02.01.2019 as void on the ground of fraud, and for cancellation of the marriage registration certificate dated 25.01.2020. Thereafter, on 09.06.2025, the Family Court, through a detailed order, proceeded ex-parte against the respondent, and the matter was listed for the petitioner’s ex-parte evidence on the next date of hearing. On 13.06.2025 and 30.06.2025, the respondent did not appear, and the petitioner closed his evidence on 30.06.2025. Subsequently, on 10.07.2025, after two

¶13

¶14

2025:UHC:9815 dates, the respondent appeared before the court without counsel and submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025. The court appointed a counsel for the respondent through legal aid. The petitioner thereafter filed objections to the respondent’s application. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, vide its order dated 06.10.2025, allowed the said application of the respondent and set-aside the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court, vide its impugned order, has overlooked the essential ingredients of the respondent’s application, which was not filed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further submits that the reasons stated in the said application were false and incorrect, which the Court failed to appreciate and nevertheless proceeded to give its reasoning, which ought not to have been considered. It is further submitted that the Family Court also failed to take into account the fact that the respondent had already appeared before the Court earlier and had deliberately chosen not to participate in the subsequent proceedings.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Rishikesh. The record reflects that the respondent appeared before the Family Court soon after the ex-parte proceedings were initiated and promptly moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2025. The

¶17

¶18

2025:UHC:9815

¶19

learned Family Court, upon considering the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, exercised its discretion to allow the same. The said discretion, being judicially exercised, cannot be interfered with in the limited scope of writ jurisdiction.

¶20

It is well settled that the provisions relating to setting aside of an ex-parte order are to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice and afford an opportunity to the parties to contest the matter on merits, rather than deciding the same ex-parte. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Family Court’s order suffers from any material irregularity or that it was passed in contravention of any statutory provision.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court finds no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in- limine.

¶22

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.11.2025

¶24

¶25

Sandeep Basnet v. Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Basnet v. Vanshita Nee Basanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal Prasad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mudassir and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Jakhmola Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shah Aalam Vs Sayyad Salamat Ali

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through Its Managing Director Vs Mahipal Singh Saini