Reasoned adjudication is indispensable, even where one party defaults, strengthens the procedural safeguards inherent in matrimonial litigation
(2025) Bombay High Court, Family Court Appeal No. 101 of 2025
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 1 October 2025
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:45841-DB
I. Introduction
The decision of the Bombay High Court in Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar marks a significant reaffirmation of the judicial duty to deliver reasoned judgments even in uncontested or ex parte matrimonial proceedings. The Court, speaking through Justice Sandesh D. Patil, set aside a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Thane, on the ground that it had been passed mechanically and without adequate judicial reasoning.
In doing so, the Court reiterated settled principles that ex parte proceedings do not relieve a trial court from its obligation to assess evidence and record findings supported by reasons. The ruling thus contributes to the jurisprudence on procedural fairness and the standards of judicial scrutiny in family law.
II. Factual Background
The appellant-wife, Riya Suralkar (née Gloria Rebello), and the respondent-husband, Rahul Suralkar, were married on 18 September 2017 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In 2022, the husband filed a petition (P.A. No. 132/2022) before the Family Court, Thane, under Section 27(1)(d) of the Act, alleging that his wife had treated him with cruelty.
The wife appeared initially but failed to file a written statement within the statutory period. Consequently, the Family Court ordered that the matter proceed without her defence. Her evidence was closed by an order dated 22 August 2024, and her right to argue was forfeited on 4 October 2024.
On 5 November 2024, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband, primarily on the ground that his testimony had remained unchallenged. No independent assessment of the allegations of cruelty was made.
III. Proceedings Before the High Court
The wife appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arguing that the impugned decree was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandatory duty of courts to deliver reasoned judgments.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that:
-
The Family Court had failed to provide any reasoning or analysis while concluding that cruelty was proved.
-
Even in the absence of a written statement, the trial court must evaluate the petitioner’s evidence on its own merits, and a decree cannot be passed merely by default.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent contended that since the wife had failed to participate, the husband’s evidence stood uncontroverted, and therefore the decree was justified. Reliance was placed on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226], and other decisions defining cruelty in matrimonial law.
IV. The High Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench, after hearing both parties, found that the Family Court’s judgment was unreasoned, perfunctory, and contrary to law. The High Court emphasized several important legal principles:
1. Duty to Give Reasons
The Court observed that the Family Court had not stated any reasons to support its finding of cruelty. The issue was “disposed of hurriedly in a casual manner,” with the sole justification being that the husband’s evidence went unchallenged.
2. Ex Parte Proceedings Do Not Dispense with Judicial Scrutiny
Relying on Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. [(1999) 8 SCC 396], the Court held that a decree cannot be granted automatically merely because the opposite party is absent or has not filed a written statement. The trial court must independently evaluate whether the petitioner’s case is proved on merits.
Similarly, reference was made to Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani [(2003) 7 SCC 350], where the Supreme Court held that even in an ex parte trial, courts must scrutinize pleadings and evidence, frame “points for determination,” and base their findings on admissible and relevant material.
3. Failure to Apply Mind
The High Court found that the Family Court had failed to apply its mind to the pleadings and evidence. It observed that the lower court was “unmindful of the legal position” and had decreed the petition “in a casual and mechanical manner.”
4. Subsequent Remarriage Irrelevant to Judicial Review
Interestingly, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the husband had remarried during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court clarified that this fact did not preclude the Court from setting aside a perverse or illegal judgment, reinforcing that procedural regularity is a matter of public policy.
V. Operative Directions
The Court quashed and set aside the Family Court’s decree dated 5 November 2024 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The following directions were issued:
-
The appellant-wife was permitted to file her written statement within 30 days of the order.
-
The Family Court was directed to frame fresh issues and permit both parties to lead and cross-examine evidence.
-
The trial court was instructed to dispose of the matter within nine months from the receipt of the order.
-
No order as to costs was made.
VI. Commentary and Implications
This judgment is of considerable jurisprudential importance, especially for family law practitioners and judges handling ex parte or uncontested divorce petitions.
A. Reaffirmation of Procedural Fairness
The Court’s insistence that reasoned adjudication is indispensable, even where one party defaults, strengthens the procedural safeguards inherent in matrimonial litigation. It reinforces that the burden of proof remains on the petitioner, irrespective of the respondent’s participation.
B. Reinforcing the Role of Family Courts
Family Courts, designed to balance efficiency with empathy, must nevertheless adhere to judicial discipline and evidentiary standards. The Bombay High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the informality of family proceedings does not dilute the requirement of legal reasoning and fairness.
C. Preventing Abuse of Ex Parte Mechanisms
Ex parte decrees in matrimonial cases can have far-reaching consequences, including impacts on remarriage, maintenance, and custody. By emphasizing scrutiny even in default situations, the Court mitigates the risk of one-sided or hurried dissolutions of marriage.
D. Broader Constitutional Context
The judgment resonates with the constitutional principle of fair procedure under Article 21, which requires that any decision affecting personal rights be taken in accordance with principles of natural justice and reasoned analysis.
VII. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar reaffirms a fundamental tenet of Indian judicial process: justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done through reasoned orders.
By quashing a cryptic and unreasoned ex parte divorce decree, the Court upheld the integrity of judicial reasoning in matrimonial disputes and ensured that the adjudicative process remains the safeguard of fairness, even when one party stands absent.
Key Cases Cited
-
Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 396.
-
Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350.
-
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511.
-
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226.
-
Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai, AIR 2020 SC 1156.