JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. Present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 10/08/2021 passed in H.M.A. No.261/2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur whereby a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent/wife (applicant therein), which is under challenge by the husband/appellant herein. The appellant is in person before this court. 2. It is not in dispute that the parties were married on 7/12/2012 and subsequently with the passage of time they could not go along which led to filing of the different petitions before the different forums including the divorce. In course of procedure, the wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against husband on various grounds wherein the husband proceeded ex-parte on 7/08/2021 and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the wife. 3. The appellant who is husband challenged such ex-parte order in person and he would submit that the way the proceeding was drawn before the family court would show that no opportunity of hearing was actually given to the appellant. He would submit that when the proceeding were drawn ex-parte, at that time under the general direction of the High Court and COVID protocol, the parties were not appearing in person before the Court, however taking benefit of the fact the email was alleged to be sent and having not been responded, the ex-parte proceeding was drawn. Reference is made to the case status, the electronic form which is maintained by the District and Sessions Court with NIC to submit that in the intervening period for certain time when the notice was ordered, the Principal Judge, Family Court was not in hold of the case as the case stood transferred to the Second Additional Family Court Judge. Therefore calling back the case from one court to his court and issuance of notice not only demonstrate the influence of the respondent but also is a procedural irregularity apparent on the face of it. He further submits that sister of the applicant/wife who is holding the post of IPS influenced the court and under those circumstances such abnormal orders were passed. He further submits that the way the proceeding has been drawn is writ large on the face of the record that it was with all bias which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. He further submits that the way the proceeding has been drawn is writ large on the face of the record that it was with all bias which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the records of the court below would show that email notices were issued as per Order 5 Rule 9 sub-rule (3) of CPC and the records of the Family Court shows the notices were duly served. It is stated despite the service of the notice since the appellant did not enter his appearance the court had no option except to proceed ex-parte. He would further submit that the allegations of the petition would show that marriage in between the parties has come to an end and it is a dead wood, therefore the purpose of resisting the decree do not serve any purpose. 5. We have heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. In order to find out as to whether the ex-parte order under challenge was justified, we ventured through the order sheets of the learned family court. Order sheet would show that the case was filed on 12/03/2021 wherein on behalf of the respondent/wife one Advocate Shri Narendra Sahu was allowed to appear to contest and notice was ordered for. Case was further fixed on 29/04/2021. It was in the Court of Shri A.L. Joshi, the then Principal Judge, Family Court. Order sheet would show that the case was filed on 12/03/2021 wherein on behalf of the respondent/wife one Advocate Shri Narendra Sahu was allowed to appear to contest and notice was ordered for. Case was further fixed on 29/04/2021. It was in the Court of Shri A.L. Joshi, the then Principal Judge, Family Court. Subsequently, a notification was issued by the High Court during the COVID intervention on 5th April, 2021 and the guidelines were issued to the District Court and the cases were categorized which could be heard during the restricted functioning of the court which reads as under:- 1) Remand matters 2) Bail matters 3) Supardnama matters 4) Appeal & Revision (Both Civil & Criminal) 5) Matters relating to under trial prisoners 6) Cases pending for more than 05 (five) years (Both Civil & Criminal) 7) Motor Accident Claim Cases 8) Matters relating to payment of amount deposited in respect of Motor Accident Claim Cases 9) Matters under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 10) Matters directed to be disposed of within time limit by the Supreme Court or the High Court (Both Civil & Criminal) 11) Other extreme urgent nature of Civil & Criminal matters, which are found to be heard on urgent basis by the Court 12) Trial of the cases concerning sexual assault against women and children. Naturally therefore we presume that the matrimonial issue was not urgent matter. 7. Though on the first filing of the case after 12/03/2021 as per order sheet it was fixed for 29/04/2021, however we do not find any order sheet of 29/04/2021. However, in the case status chart, which has been placed before us in respect of the pertinent case, it shows the subsequent recorded date of 29/04/2021 and further hearing was fixed on 12/07/2021. The order sheet of the learned family court would show that on 18/06/2021 Advocate K.P. Sharma from his mobile number 7000909778 requested for urgent hearing. On such request on mobile phone communication, the case was taken up by the Principal Judge, Family Court and notice was ordered and case was fixed for 12/07/2021. The case status report of case number 261/2021 do not show that the date was fixed on 18/06/2021 it directly shows that after 29/04/2021 the case went for hearing on 12/07/2021. On such request on mobile phone communication, the case was taken up by the Principal Judge, Family Court and notice was ordered and case was fixed for 12/07/2021. The case status report of case number 261/2021 do not show that the date was fixed on 18/06/2021 it directly shows that after 29/04/2021 the case went for hearing on 12/07/2021. Case status report also contains a case transfer detail within the establishment which shows that on 7/06/2021 the pertinent case number 261/2021 Hindu Marriage Act was transferred to the Second Additional Principal Judge, Raipur and subsequently on 14/07/2021 again it was transferred back from the court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. Under these circumstances, when the case was in hold of the other Judge how the Principal Judge, Family Court passed the order of issuance of notice is not clear before us. It may happen that during the COVID period during limited working the case would have been taken up but such taking up of the case is not supported by any documents and case status report except the order sheet of 18/06/2021. Therefore, the doubt which has been vehemently projected by the appellant of serious injury looms large. 8. Further more, the order sheet would show that on 12/07/2021 again the Principal Judge who was not in hold of the case passed an order to get the case fixed on 3/08/2021 as it has been reiterated earlier the case transfer detail the pertinent case shows that the case was with Second Additional Principal Judge on the relevant date on 12/07/2021. We are not able to understand as to under what circumstances such order was passed. Subsequent order sheet would show that though the case was fixed on 3/08/2021 on that date the Presiding Judge i.e. the Principal Judge, Family Court Shri A.L. Joshi was on leave and case was fixed for 7/08/2021. On 7/08/2021 the order sheet records the presence of the respondent/wife wherein it shows that on 12/07/2021 the service report was produced to the effect that email notice was served. The appellant/husband did not appeared on 3/08/2021 i.e. earlier date. Consequently, he was proceeded ex-parte and case was fixed for recording of the evidence on 9/08/2021. 9. On 7/08/2021 the order sheet records the presence of the respondent/wife wherein it shows that on 12/07/2021 the service report was produced to the effect that email notice was served. The appellant/husband did not appeared on 3/08/2021 i.e. earlier date. Consequently, he was proceeded ex-parte and case was fixed for recording of the evidence on 9/08/2021. 9. Apparently on the initial first instance the order sheet of the Principal Judge do not tally with the record of court status. When the orders passed by him when are placed in juxtapose with the case transfer detail which shows that when notice was ordered by Principal Judge, Family Court case was in hold of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. It is obvious that when the case is in hold of another Judge, the other Judge could not have called the case to pass an order. We cannot forget the corner stone in dispensing justice that faith of the general people must be upheld. The order sheet shows that the script has different flaws which do not match with the proceeding of ex-parte inasmuch as on 3/08/2021 the alleged date on which the appellant was asked to appear, the Presiding Judge being on leave under what circumstances on the basis of email report of service to appear on 3/08/2021, instead of that date on subsequent date ex-parte proceedings were drawn. When the affirmative actions are being targeted specially in the judicial acts the proceeding must pass the litmus test. The reform lies at root. To ignore the state of affair would be ominous. The way the proceeding was drawn it made the judicial system porous which cannot be supported by mere turn of phrase. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the ex-parte judgment and decree cannot be sustained as it has been pointed out from the record of the trial court by the appellant that the ex-parte proceeding was completely illegal, therefore we allow the appeal and the ex parte judgment and decree of the learned trial court is set aside.