Bombay High Court
SHEETAL SATISH SAWANTversusSATISH GUNAJI SAWANT
- Disposal
- Disposed of
- Bench
- AMIT S JAMSANDEKAR
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the judgment vitiated and therefore set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Sheetal Sawant, appealed a lower court order that had dismissed her challenge to a decree cancelling her civil marriage. The High Court examined whether the trial court had violated the principles of natural justice by conducting ex parte proceedings and denying the respondent the opportunity to cross‑examine key witnesses. The court found that the trial court proceeded in a hyper‑technical manner, recorded depositions despite the respondent’s lack of representation, and continued with final arguments even while an application to set aside an ex parte order was pending. These procedural lapses amounted to a gross violation of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter for a fresh trial with proper cross‑examination and final arguments. The order also imposed strict timelines for completion of the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the courts below erred in law by violating the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the trial
- Whether the ex parte conduct and denial of cross‑examination constitute a substantial question of law warranting appellate intervention
Subjects
- natural justice
- ex parte proceedings
- matrimonial dispute
- cancellation of marriage
- procedural fairness
- cross‑examination
- substantial question of law
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:937 Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2026
Mrs. Sheetal Satish Sawant Age 36,
Occupation homemaker, R/o H NO. 493,
Ashvem, Mandrem, Pernem, Goa, …APPELLANT
~ VERSUS ~
Mr. Satish Gunaji Sawant Age 39, Occupation
police driver, R/o H no. 498, Ashvem,
Mandrem, Pernem, Goa, …RESPONDENT
A PPEARANCES :
for the Appellant. Ms Apeksha Kalokhe and Ms Ashwini
Bandekar, Advocates.
for the Respondent Mr Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate.
CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Dated : 23rd April, 2026.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.
Page 1 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
2. By way of the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the order
passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
Goa at Panaji, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the
appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment and order dated
17.6.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division “A”
Court at Mapusa. The proceedings arise under Articles 4 and 5 of
the law of divorce.
3. The matrimonial suit was instituted by the Respondent seeking
cancellation of the civil marriage between the Appellant and the
Respondent.
4. The parties shall be referred to in accordance with their status
before the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent has sought framing of a
substantial question of law.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has opposed the second appeal
on the ground that, in view of concurrent findings of fact, no
substantial question of law arises. In support of his submissions,
Mr. Amonkar relied upon the judgment in the case of
Chandrabhan(Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and
others Vs Saraswati and others, (2022)20 SCC 199 and submitted
that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in
Page 2 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
view of concurrent findings against the Respondent, no substantial
question of law would arise in light of the guidelines laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 31 which read
thus:-
30. The proper test for determining whether a question of law
raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general
public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects
the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open
question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court.
If the question is settled by the highest court or the general
principles to be applied in determining the question are well
settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles
or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question would not
be a substantial question of law.
31. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be debatable,
not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent,
and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it
are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case”
there must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and
the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact
arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide
that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case.
An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High
Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the
Page 3 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a
substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount
overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious
balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all
stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life
of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
[Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC
179] .)
7. It is, however, contended that there is a gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the judgment in the
case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Legal
Representatives(supra) has general public importance and ought
to be considered in the present proceedings, particularly in the
context of matrimonial disputes. I find merit in the submission of
learned counsel for the Respondent that if there is a breach of the
principles of natural justice, a substantial question of law would
arise.
8. Upon perusal of the record, in particular the roznama of the trial
Court, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be admitted.
9. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of
law:-
Page 4 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
(a). Whether the Courts below erred in law in conducting the trial
in a manner resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice,
thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree?
10. Mr. Amonkar, learned counsel, waives notice for the Petitioner
(Respondent herein).
11. Upon perusal of the record, I find that the trial Court has proceeded
in a hyper-technical and mechanical manner in conducting the trial
for cancellation of marriage between the parties.
12. The reasons are as follows:
(i) When the matter was listed on 22.12.2022, the Advocate
appearing for the Respondent sought discharge on the ground
that the Respondent had taken back her file. This fact is
recorded in the roznama dated 22.12.2022. Despite recording
the said fact, the trial Court proceeded on the very same day
to record the deposition of PW1, which was completed on that
day itself. Various documents were also marked during
examination-in-chief. The roznama records that an
opportunity was granted to the Respondent to cross-examine
PW1, and the matter was adjourned to 31.12.2022.
(ii) On 31.12.2022, none appeared before the Court, and the
matter was adjourned to 24.01.2023. On 24.01.2023, the
Page 5 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
roznama records that “Respondent proceeds ex parte.” On
the same day, the trial Court recorded the depositions of PW2
and PW3 and closed the evidence of the Petitioner. Thus,
immediately on the next effective date, the opportunity earlier
granted to cross-examine PW1 stood effectively closed.
(iii) The matter was next listed on 16.02.2023, when the
Respondent appeared in person and filed an application for
setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.01.2023 (Exh. D-26).
Despite the said application being on record, the trial Court
proceeded to fix the matter for final arguments and recorded
that “final arguments are advance by Adv. J. Fernandes.”
(iv) On subsequent dates, including 04.03.2023 and 20.03.2023,
the matter was adjourned due to administrative reasons. On
27.03.2023, reply to Exh. 26 was filed and vakalatnama of a
newly appointed Advocate for the Respondent was taken on
record.
(v) On 25.04.2023, the roznama records that the Advocate for the
Petitioner had already advanced final arguments, and the
Advocate for the Respondent sought time to advance
arguments on Exh. 26. On 01.05.2023, the trial Court allowed
Page 6 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
the application, set aside the ex parte order, and granted an
opportunity to the Respondent to advance final arguments.
(vi) Thereafter, the matter was listed on 05.06.2023 and
17.06.2023, on which date the judgment was pronounced. A
cumulative reading of the roznama clearly reflects that the
matter proceeded ex parte at a crucial stage, and the
Respondent was effectively denied an opportunity to cross-
examine PW1, PW2, and PW3.
13. When the trial Court was aware that the Respondent was not
represented by a lawyer, there was no justification to record the
deposition of PW1 on the same day. Further, after only one
adjournment, the trial Court proceeded to record the depositions
of PW2 and PW3 and declared the proceedings ex parte.
14. More importantly, even during the pendency of the application for
setting aside the ex parte order, the trial Court proceeded with final
arguments. This approach clearly deprived the Respondent of an
effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
15. The trial Court has thus adopted a mechanical approach, which is
impermissible, particularly in matrimonial disputes. The
Respondent ought to have been granted an opportunity to cross-
Page 7 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
examine the witnesses of the Petitioner, followed by a meaningful
opportunity to hear.
16. A perusal of the impugned judgment further reveals that the trial
Court has merely reproduced the pleadings and evidence of the
Petitioner without assigning independent reasons. The absence of
reasoning is attributable to the lack of cross-examination and
participation by the Respondent.
17. I, therefore, find that there is a gross violation of the principles of
natural justice.
18. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 17.6.2023 passed by
the trial Court is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded to the trial Court for granting an
opportunity to the Respondent to cross-examine PW1, PW2, and
PW3.
(iv) Upon completion of cross-examination, the trial Court shall
hear final arguments of both parties and dispose of the matter
afresh, in accordance with law.
Page 8 of 9
April 23rd 2026
Sheetal Satish Sawant.
vs.
Satish Gunaji Sawant
__________________________________________________
SA35-2026
(v) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six
months from today.
(vi) It is made clear that the Respondent shall not seek adjournments
on any ground. If the Respondent intends to appoint a new
Advocate, the same shall be done within a period of two days from
today.
(vii) The Respondent shall not be entitled to rely upon any
documents, except for the purpose of confronting witnesses during
cross-examination.
(viii) The Second Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
19. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on the production
by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.]
Page 9 of 9
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK April 23rd 2026
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 28/04/2026 18:19:27
Checking your session…