Case: Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar, Family Court Appeal No. 101 of 2025
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Date of Judgment: 1 October 2025
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Riya Suralkar (nee Gloria Rebello) challenging the decision of the Family Court, Thane, which had granted a decree of divorce to her husband Rahul Suralkar on November 5, 2024.
The husband had sought dissolution of the marriage under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging that his wife had treated him with cruelty. Their marriage had been solemnized on September 18, 2017, in accordance with the Special Marriage Act.
The wife failed to file her written statement within the prescribed time, did not appear for evidence, and her right to argue was forfeited. Based solely on the husband’s unchallenged testimony, the Family Court granted the divorce.
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Appellant (Wife):
Counsel argued that the Family Court’s judgment was unreasoned, mechanical, and contrary to law. Even if the wife failed to file a written statement or lead evidence, the court was still duty-bound to evaluate the husband’s case on its own merits. The Family Court, counsel argued, had not provided any reasons for concluding that cruelty was proved.
For the Respondent (Husband):
Counsel contended that the wife had repeatedly remained absent and failed to cooperate, leaving the husband’s evidence unchallenged. The Family Court’s order, therefore, was valid and proper.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Sandesh D. Patil, writing for the bench, delivered a scathing critique of the Family Court’s approach, noting that:
- The lower court had failed to assign any reasons for finding cruelty.
- The decree was granted merely because the wife did not appear or contest, which is legally impermissible.
- The Family Court ignored the settled law that even in ex parte proceedings, the petitioner’s case must be assessed independently on merits.
The Court referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 396
- Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 350
These judgments clarify that absence of a written statement does not automatically justify a decree; courts must still scrutinize evidence and provide reasoned findings.
The High Court found that the Family Court’s decree was “cryptic and unreasoned”, lacking any analysis of whether the husband’s claims of cruelty were substantiated.
Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the Family Court’s judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. Key directions included:
- The wife is permitted to file her written statement within 30 days from the date of the order.
- The Family Court must frame issues afresh, allow both parties to lead and cross-examine evidence, and decide the matter on merits.
- The Family Court should dispose of the case within nine months.
Interestingly, during the appeal, the husband had already remarried, but the High Court held that this fact could not validate a legally flawed decree, emphasizing that procedural fairness and judicial reasoning cannot be compromised.
Legal Significance
This judgment underscores a vital principle of matrimonial jurisprudence — that even in uncontested or ex parte proceedings, courts must provide reasoned findings based on evidence. Merely because one party is absent, a decree of divorce cannot be granted automatically.
The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s duty of careful scrutiny, especially in cases affecting marital status and personal rights, where outcomes have lifelong consequences.
Conclusion
The Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar decision stands as an important reaffirmation of procedural fairness in family law. The Bombay High Court’s intervention ensures that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of expediency, sending a clear message that unreasoned ex parte decrees cannot withstand judicial review.