Went to Dubai but didn’t get time to fight divorce? HC throws out woman’s case
Times of India | 6 February 2026
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday refused to condone a two-year delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte divorce decree by a woman, observing that while she could "fly to Dubai" at an advanced stage of pregnancy, she "could not contact an advocate next door."
The divorce decree was granted on Oct 16, 2023, under the Special Marriage Act. The wife claimed she became aware of it in Oct 2024 but filed her appeal only on May 23, 2025. She said she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy at the time and had been advised bed rest. She gave birth to a son on March 14, 2025, and filed the appeal after recovering. The divorce had been granted on grounds of adultery.
A division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya declined to condone the delay, noting that she had travelled to Dubai on Sept 14, 2024, despite being advised bed rest in Aug 2024. "Thus, we cannot also accept the contention that she was in such an advanced stage of pregnancy that she could fly to Dubai but could not contact an advocate next door. If the child was born six months after her return from abroad, the term ‘advanced stage' cannot be applied to the pregnancy," the bench observed.
The woman contended that the trial court ought not to have proceeded with the divorce hearing merely because the service notice was returned unclaimed. She argued that the notice was sent to an incorrect address and that she was not in India at the time of service.
According to her passport records, she had left India on Oct 28, 2022, and returned on Sept 19, 2023, while the summons was served in July 2023. She also submitted that the husband had sought divorce on grounds of adultery and that, under the Special Marriage Act, the alleged adulterer must be made a party to the proceedings — which, she claimed, was not done in this case.
Without entering into the merits of the case, the bench rejected her plea solely on the ground of inordinate delay without explanation. "Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of the party," the bench held.