Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court, Jodhpur dated 29.05.2001 by which the application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed by the Family Court while proceeding ex parte against the present appellant - non - applicant before the Family Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that she has been regularly appearing before the Court and has fully participated in the proceedings. However, after the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the matter was to be taken up for leading evidence by the non-applicant, the Presiding Officer was not posted for considerable long time. The Court was lying vacant. During the period on 12.02.2001, neither of the parties were present and the next date was fixed about which no information could be gathered. 4. It may be noticed that in the Family Court, the parties are not allowed to be represented through lawyer as a matter of right and no lawyers were appearing in the Family Court on behalf of the present appellant. In these circumstances, when on the date fixed in absence of the petitioner-appellant, when the Presiding Officer was not posted, on that date, the appellant could not appear because of ignorance about the date and the order for ex parte proceeding was passed and on the next date, the husband sought time to file written argument and after submission of written argument and hearing the learned Counsel for the husband the Judgment was pronounced on 25.05.2001. 5. We find from the record of the proceedings that aforesaid contention is right. The hot haste in which the Judge, Family Court who has joined after quite some time when no Presiding Officer in the Family Court and keeping in view the fact that the parties appearing before the Court are not represented through lawyers, there is no means by which the date fixed in their absence could be communicated to them. None appearance of the parties on the date when the Presiding Officer were not posted, could not be ground for taking adverse view against the appellant. None appearance of the parties on the date when the Presiding Officer were not posted, could not be ground for taking adverse view against the appellant. The record of the proceeding shows that as a matter of fact in the first instance on 010.1997, the applicant’s application was dismissed for want of prosecution as he was not present even after his name was called number of times. It was thereafter restored. Moreover, when the parties are required to be present in person and are not assisted by the lawyers or any other representative, the Court should be slow to proceed ex parte. We further find that while the applicant is residing at Jodhpur. The Family Court is situated at Jodhpur. The appellant was residing at Barmer and obviously for making enquiry about the date she has to travel from Barmer to Jodhpur. 6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Judge Family Court dated 09.04.2001 proceeding ex parte against the present appellant was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Once we come to the conclusion that the order proceeding ex parte against the appellant was not justified, consequence follows that the appeal is allowed, the Judgment under appeal is set aside so also the order proceeding ex parte against the appellant is also set aside. The appellant is allowed to appear before the Family Court. The record of the case may be returned to the Family Court. The family Court shall issue fresh notices to both the parties as no body is represented before us on behalf of the husband. Therefore, no date can be fixed now for the parties to appear before the Family Court. After giving opportunity to the partis to lead evidence and to place their respective cases before the Court, the application filed by the husband may be decided in accordance with law. 7. No order as to costs.