Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ
1. The appellant has challenged the legality of the order, dated 19.12.2020, passed by the learned Family Court, Haridwar, whereby the learned Family
Court has dismissed the appellant’s application for restoring the divorce suit.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 17.09.2015, the appellant-husband, Mr. Yogesh Singh, had filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent-wife, Ms. Sangeeta Chauhan. By order dated 18.09.2018, the issues were framed by the learned Family
Court. On 18.09.2017, the appellant had submitted his affidavit which was treated as examination-in-chief. Therefore, he was directed to appear for
cross-examination on 06.10.2017. However, the appellant did not appear for cross-examination on two occasions, namely on 19.01.2018 and
24.04.2018. On 30.05.2018, the matter was adjourned for 13.07.2018. On 13.07.2018, since the appellant did not appear before the Court, the learned
Family Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution.
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13.07.2018, initially, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court. However, by order dated 03.12.2020, a
learned Coordinate Bench directed the appellant to file a restoration application before the learned Family Court. Consequently, the said application
was filed. However, by the impugned order dated 19.12.2020, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. Hence, this appeal
against the order dated 19.12.2020.
4. Mr. Aditya Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, the learned Family Court is unjustified in claiming that the appellant has sought numerous adjournments. In fact, the appellant has sought
adjournment only on four occasions, namely on 28.06.2017, 27.07.2017, 19.01.2018, and 24.04.2018.
Secondly, on 13.07.2018, there were two cases of the appellant pending before the learned Family Court: (i) The case filed by the respondent under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) the divorce suit filed by the appellant. While the former case was taken up in the morning session,
the latter case was taken up in the afternoon session. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was present before the learned Family Court in
the morning session. However, while he was in the Court he was informed that his mother fell ill. Therefore, he could not attend the divorce suit in the
afternoon session.
Thirdly, the reasoning given by the learned Family Court that the appellant has not paid the amount under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and
since he has not even bothered to pay the cost imposed by the Court in the divorce suit, the appellant is not entitled to have his divorce suit restored to
its original number. According to the learned counsel, merely because the amount of expenses has not been paid by the appellant, he cannot be non-
suited. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the appellant has been paying the amount of expenses to the respondent. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel, the impugned order dated 19.12.2020 deserves to be set-aside by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, examined the order-sheets of the learned Family Court, as submitted by the appellant, and perused the
impugned order.
6. Admittedly, the divorce suit was filed on 17.09.2015. After framing of the issues on 11.08.2017, and after the submission of the affidavit by the
appellant, on 18.09.2017, the case was listed repeatedly for cross-examination of the appellant. Admittedly, on 19.01.2018, since the appellant was
absent, he was imposed with the cost of Rs.250/- and the last opportunity to the appellant to subject himself for cross-examination was given by the
learned Family Court on the said date. Despite the fact that the last opportunity was given, inspite of the fact that the cost had been imposed, again on
24.04.2018, the appellant was absent from the Court. Moreover, the cost imposed was not even paid by him before the Court.
7. Although, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has paid the amount of expenses to the respondent from 2015 to
December, 2017, but no evidence on this point has been submitted by the appellant before the learned Family Court, or even before this Court so far.
8. The appellant has taken a curious stand which is self-contradictory. For, in his application for restoration, he claims that on 13.07.2018 when he left
his house, he was informed that his mother has suddenly fallen ill. He returned to his home, and took his mother to a Doctor. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, indeed, the appellant was available in the Court in the morning session, and it is only prior to the
afternoon session that he was informed, in the Court, that his mother has fallen ill. Therefore, he was unable to attend the proceedings in the divorce
suit in the afternoon session. These two facts cannot stand together. For, in the first statement, the appellant claims that he could not even reach the
Court, yet in the second statement, it has been argued that the appellant reached the Court, and appeared in the proceedings under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. in the morning session. Both these statements are self-contradictory.
9. Furthermore, according to the impugned order dated 19.12.2020, the appellant had not filed any medical certificate to establish the fact that his
mother had, indeed, fallen ill on 13.07.2018. Therefore, the learned Family Court is justified in concluding that in absence of any medical certificate
establishing the fact that appellant’s mother had fallen ill on 13.07.2018, the said defence cannot be accepted.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.12.2020 clearly reveals that the learned Family Court has relied on the fact that even the amount of
expenses has not been paid, and even the cost has not been paid, in order to draw two conclusions: firstly, the divorce suit was filed in the year 2015,
and continued to be dragged for three years, and the fact that the appellant refused to comply with the orders of the Court clearly reveals the divorce
proceeding is nothing but a means of harassing the respondent-wife. Secondly, such a person who does not comply with the orders of the Court
certainly does not deserve any sympathy from the Courts. A person who shows no respect to the orders of the Court cannot expect the Court to show
patience with him as a litigant. It is, indeed, an old saying that “those who take to the sword shall perish by the swordâ€.
11. The conduct of the appellant clearly shows that he tends to make statements, such as that his mother had fallen ill on 13.07.2018 without any
evidentiary basis. Moreover, although a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has paid the amount of
expenses, no evidence on this point has been submitted before this Court. Thus, the appellant seems to be in the habit of making such statements
without any evidentiary basis. A litigant who tries to take the Court out for a ride by making such baseless statements does not deserve any mercy
from the Court.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
