News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 16
Bilaspur, 06.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside an ex parte divorce decree passed by a Family Court at Janjgir, holding that the denial of free legal aid and failure to appoint an amicus curiae amounted to a serious violation of the wife’s fundamental right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling was delivered on January 6, 2026, by a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal in an appeal arising out of a matrimonial dispute between Anchal Agrawal and Arvind Agrawal.
The appeal challenged a February 22, 2024 judgment of the Family Court which had dissolved the marriage by proceeding ex parte against the wife. The High Court found that the Family Court acted without jurisdiction in treating January 16, 2024 as a date of hearing and in proceeding ex parte, even though the matter had been earlier referred to the National Lok Adalat and was at the stage of reconciliation and filing of written statement.
The Bench noted that under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, once a case is returned from a Lok Adalat without settlement, the court must resume proceedings from the same stage at which the reference was made. Since the matter was not fixed for evidence or final hearing, the Family Court could not have invoked the ex parte procedure. Relying on settled precedent, the High Court reiterated that a case can be treated as fixed for “hearing of the suit” only when it is listed for evidence, arguments, or adjudication on merits, and not for interlocutory or procedural steps.
A significant part of the judgment focused on the denial of legal aid to the wife. The record showed that when she appeared before the Family Court on January 29, 2024, she orally expressed her inability to engage a lawyer due to financial constraints. Instead of ensuring immediate legal assistance, the Family Court merely advised her to approach the District Legal Services Authority and later proceeded to record evidence in her absence. The High Court held that this approach was legally unsustainable.
Referring to the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, the Bench emphasised that oral requests for legal aid are legally recognised and must be acted upon. It further held that once the court is aware that a litigant is indigent or otherwise unable to secure representation, it has a duty to facilitate free legal assistance, even in the absence of a formal written application.
The Court also invoked Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Family Courts Rules, 2007, to underline the obligation of Family Courts to appoint an amicus curiae in appropriate cases. It found that the Family Court failed on both counts by neither appointing an amicus nor ensuring legal aid through the Legal Services Authority, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Setting aside the divorce decree, the High Court restored the matrimonial suit to its original stage as it stood on November 28, 2023. It directed the Family Court to rehear the matter afresh after providing free legal aid to the wife through the District Legal Services Authority. The parties have been directed to appear before the Family Court on January 29, 2026.
Beyond the individual case, the Bench issued broader directions to all Family Courts in Chhattisgarh to strictly comply with Rule 14 of the 2007 Rules by maintaining a dedicated panel of legal experts willing to act as amicus curiae. The Court cautioned that merely asking litigants to approach legal services authorities without ensuring actual representation defeats the statutory and constitutional mandate of access to justice.
The judgment reinforces that family court proceedings, which often involve vulnerable litigants, must be conducted with heightened sensitivity to procedural fairness and legal assistance, especially where one party is economically or socially disadvantaged.
Case Reference : FA(MAT) No. 197 of 2024, Anchal Agrawal, W/o Arvind Agrawal vs Arvind Agrawal, S/o Fattehchand Agrawal
Counsels : For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Amicus Curiae : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate.