Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Chhattisgarh High Court Restores Challenge to Ex Parte Divorce Decree
A husband asked a family court to end his marriage.
The court tried to notify his wife, but the notice was returned undelivered.
It then published a notice in a newspaper and ended the marriage without the wife appearing.
The wife later said she did not know about the divorce until several months afterward.
She asked the court to reopen the case, but the family court rejected her request as too late.
The Chhattisgarh High Court said the family court should have tried harder to contact her directly.
It restored her right to challenge the divorce and accepted her explanation for the delay.
Both sides must now appear before the family court on October 12, 2026.
The Chhattisgarh High Court restored a woman’s challenge to a divorce decree issued without her appearance.
The court found that the family court had not made sufficient efforts to serve her directly before using newspaper publication.
The divorce decree was passed ex parte on April 25, 2024, after the husband filed proceedings on January 9, 2024.
The woman said she learned of the decree on November 18, 2024, and applied to set it aside on December 2.
The high court condoned the filing delay and directed both parties to appear before the family court on October 12, 2026.
- Who
- A woman, her husband, the family court, and the Chhattisgarh High Court, including Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput.
- What
- The high court restored the woman’s application challenging an ex parte divorce decree and condoned the delay in filing it.
- When
- The divorce decree was issued on April 25, 2024; the high court ruling was issued on September 11; the parties must appear on October 12, 2026.
- Where
- The proceedings involved a family court in Chhattisgarh; the marriage was solemnised in Aurangabad, Bihar, and the woman learned of the decree during counselling in a maintenance case there.
- Why
- The high court found that the woman had not been properly served and that substituted service through newspaper publication had been used without sufficient efforts at ordinary service.
Woman’s challenge
Family court’s action
Whether service was adequate
Woman’s challenge
The woman argued that she had not been properly served and did not know about the divorce before the decree was issued.
Family court’s action
The family court relied on returned notices and a newspaper publication before proceeding in her absence.
Use of substituted service
Woman’s challenge
The high court said the court should have issued a fresh summons and made further efforts to serve her before using newspaper publication.
Family court’s action
The husband requested newspaper publication after the ordinary and registered notices were returned unserved.
Delay in challenging the decree
Woman’s challenge
The woman said she learned of the decree on November 18, 2024, obtained certified copies on November 27, and filed her application on December 2.
Family court’s action
The family court found inconsistencies in her account and treated the application as time-barred under the 30-day limit.
- Marriage date
- July 2, 2021
- Divorce petition filed
- January 9, 2024
- Ex parte decree
- April 25, 2024
- Woman learned of decree
- November 18, 2024
- Application to set aside decree
- December 2, 2024
- High court finding
- Substituted service must be a last resort and cannot be ordered mechanically.
- Next appearance
- October 12, 2026, before the family court