ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Draft amendment granted. Heard Mr.Samir Afzal Khan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Aman Mir, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Mahesh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Tanmay Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. With consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Admit. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife challenging the judgement and decree dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Family Court, Jamnagar. By the aforesaid judgement and decree, the Family Suit No. 25 of 2022 filed by the respondent – husband praying for divorce under Sec.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty against the appellant herein was granted. This judgement and decree is under challenge at the hands of the wife. 4. Mr.Samir Afzal Khan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Aman Mir, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions: 4.1 He would submit that there is nothing on record to suggest that the grounds of cruelty have been established by the Family Court. He would submit that, though an application was filed under Sec.13 for divorce claiming that the appellant was misbehaving with the family members of the husband – respondent herein, except the respondent having been examined, no other evidence has been led before the Family Court to establish the grounds of cruelty. 4.2 Mr.Samir Afzal Khan, learned counsel, would further submit that the judgement and decree has been passed ex-parte, inasmuch as, the Family Court at Jamnagar, after recording that she had appeared through her lawyer, closed the right of filing the written statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte. He would further submit that the judgement and decree of the Family Court be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh consideration by the Family Court. For this submission, he would rely on an application filed at Exh.20 by the respondent requesting the Family Court to close the stage of filing of written statement which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was not served on the appellant. 5. Mr.Mahesh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Tanmay Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that sufficient grounds were made out before the Family Court for granting of divorce under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Mr.Mahesh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Tanmay Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that sufficient grounds were made out before the Family Court for granting of divorce under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Reading the memo of the application filed under Sec.13, he would submit that what was clearly set out in the application was that the appellant would always want to return to her parental home without sufficient cause. She would be in the habit of fighting with his family members and even on an occasion when the father of the respondent was serious, she insisted that they should establish a separate home. An incident of 26.04.2021, in which the appellant would fight with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) has also been highlighted in the memo of the application to suggest that being quarrelsome, the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce. 5.1 During the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr.Samir Afzal Khan, learned counsel, had drawn our attention to the fact that this Court, while considering the judgement and decree under challenge, had on 23.11.2022 while issuing notice to the respondent stayed the judgement and decree of the Family Court. We also note that the appeal on 27.03.2023 was also dismissed for non-prosecution. He has placed on record additional affidavit of one Nidhesh Kumar Mehta filed in the civil application for stay. A certificate of registration of marriage dated 27.12.2022 indicates that the respondent got married on 21.12.2022 pending the appeal fully knowing that there was a stay against the judgement and decree of the Family Court by which the respondent was granted divorce. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and without being influenced by the subsequent event of the respondent having married though being aware of the pendency of the first appeal, we have examined the judgement and order on merits. 6.1 From a perusal of the application filed for divorce, we find that the allegations set out in the memo of the application indicates that the parties got married on 15.12.2010. It was the case of the respondent that the appellant would engage in quarrels with her in-laws and especially her sister-in-law, that she would insist on staying separately from the matrimonial home and at one stage she had exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a daughter-in-law. It was the case of the respondent that the appellant would engage in quarrels with her in-laws and especially her sister-in-law, that she would insist on staying separately from the matrimonial home and at one stage she had exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a daughter-in-law. She had also not taken care of the respondent’s father while he was seriously ailing. 6.2 Perusal of the judgement and decree of the Trial Court would indicate that though the respondent in the suit i.e. the appellant herein did not contest the suit even by filing the written statement, the Family Court, only on the basis of the evidence of the respondent which he gave vide Exh.11 which was nothing but the fact that he had reiterated in the plaint, came to the conclusion that “cruelty was established at the hands of the appellant, and therefore, the respondent deserves a decree of divorce.” The learned Judge has also in the list of evidences set out one Pen-Drive, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent had conversation between the parties. 6.3 There are two points that we need to consider in examining the judgement and decree of the Family Court, especially in light of the evidence of the respondent himself. If it was the case of the respondent as made out in the application that the appellant was quarrelsome, inasmuch as, being intolerant she would quarrel with her in-laws especially when a date of 26.04.2011 is mentioned, the question that confounds us is whether the Family Court was justified only on the bare statement of the respondent in the plaint as well as in his examination especially when the appellant-wife did not step into the witness box nor filed the written statement. 6.4 True it may be that the appellant was casual enough not to contest before the Family Court, but, in our opinion, the Family Court in such circumstances had to be more responsible in examining the allegation of cruelty and not accept the statement of the respondent at face value when it was the case of the respondent that the appellant was quarrelsome with her in-laws. It was the bounden duty of the Family Court to elicit oral evidence from the family members of the respondent, which it did not. It was the bounden duty of the Family Court to elicit oral evidence from the family members of the respondent, which it did not. We may not put the blame squarely on the Family Court, however, when it was a clear allegation of cruelty vis-a-vis, the family members by the respondent, the respondent ought to have put sufficient evidence through his family members in order to establish the allegation of cruelty. 6.5 There is one other reason where the learned Judge has referred to a Pen-Drive produced before the Court and which is exhibited at Exh.17. There is no discussion on the contents of the Pen-Drive which purportedly according to the respondent contained conversation. We are at loss to say as to what the conversation was or the contents of the Pen-Drive and the manner in which and if at all the learned Judge examined the Pen-Drive through the formal mode established in law. 6.6 These are the grounds on which we find that the Family Court has in coming to the conclusion of the respondent having established the case of cruelty adopted a half-hearted approach rather than delving into the evidence or call for further evidence particularly when there are allegations by the respondent that the joint family in which they lived, which had a father, mother and a brother and there was a dispute between the parties, it was the bounden duty of the Family Court to examine witnesses to prove the allegation of cruelty. 7. For the reasons aforesaid therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the judgement and decree of the Family Court, Jamnagar, dated 14.11.2022 passed in Family Suit No. 25 of 2022. We, further direct that the Family Suit No. 25 of 2022 be restored to the file of the Family Court at Jamnagar, to be heard on merits. The counsel for the appellant undertakes that within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the appellant shall file a written statement before the Family Court in Family Suit No. 25 of 2022. On such written statement being filed, the Family Court shall proceed to re-hear the matter. The respondent shall also be given a chance to produce any additional evidence if thought fit by the respondent to support his case as alleged in the application. On such written statement being filed, the Family Court shall proceed to re-hear the matter. The respondent shall also be given a chance to produce any additional evidence if thought fit by the respondent to support his case as alleged in the application. The appellant shall then offer herself for examination and cross-examination and be permitted to lead evidence that is permissible. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Family Court at Jamnagar, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. From the operative portion of the order of the Family Court, it appears that the respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.3 lakhs in the Family Court towards permanent alimony. The appellant shall not be permitted to withdraw the same. The amount shall be retained by the Family Court till the final disposal of the Family Suit. The amount retained by the Family Court shall be invested in a nationalized Bank for a period of one year and shall be renewed from time to time till final disposal of the Suit. The appeal is allowed accordingly, to the aforesaid extent. Connected Civil Applications stand disposed of, accordingly.