JUDGMENT :

The wife is in appeal challenging the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 by which, her marriage conducted on 07.03.2014 with the respondent has been dissolved.

2. On 30.11.2015, the respondent-husband filed a petition which was numbered as M.C. No. 5221/2015 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity). In the said petition, the address of the appellant/wife was stated as follows:

“Smt.Deepa M.P.,

W/o.Shalivahana Tejaswi K.L.,

Aged about 25 years,

R/at No.69, 18th Cross,

Jayanagar, 5th Block,

Bengaluru – 560 041.”

3. The Family Court registered the petition and issued notice to the appellant/wife both through Court and by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). The notice sent was not served on the appellant/wife for want of correct address.

4. A request was made for grant of time to furnish correct address and accordingly, the matter was adjourned on two occasions.

5. On 16.07.2016, the Family Court once again issued notice to the appellant/wife through Court and by RPAD and also by courier. However, process fee was not paid and hence, notice was not sent. The matter was finally adjourned for taking steps to 03.11.2016.

6. On 03.11.2016, a submission was made by the respondent/husband through his counsel stating that the appellant/wife had left the address and hence, time may be granted for furnishing the correct address. Accordingly, matter was finally adjourned to 01.12.2016.

7. On 01.12.2016, the process fee and RPAD charges were paid and hence, the Court directed issuance of notice to the appellant/wife through Court and by RPAD returnable by 02.02.2017.

8. The office note in the order sheet of 02.02.2017 reads as follows:

“Notice through Court not Served

IMAGE

RPAD Not served as “Addressee Refused.”

9. As could be seen from the above note in the order sheet, though the court notice was not served on the ground that the residential address could not be traced, the notice sent by RPAD was stated as to have been refused.

10. The Family Court notwithstanding this anomaly, nevertheless, proceeded to accept the endorsement of the postal authorities that ‘the addressee had refused’ and held service of notice on the appellant-wife was sufficient.

11. It is obvious that the notice sent by RPAD was also to the very same address to which the process server of the Court had apparently visited to serve the notice and had stated that he was unable to trace the address.

12. In other words, in respect of the address which the process server could not trace, the postal authorities stated that the addressee (appellant herein) had refused service.

13. As stated earlier, the Family Court, thereafter, despite the anomaly, proceeded to hold the notice to the appellant herein as sufficient and proceeded to place her ex parte.

14. The Family Court, thereafter, went on to grant a decree dissolving the marriage mainly on the ground that there was no contest.

15. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant/wife that both the husband and wife were residing together in the same house i.e., the residential address which had been indicated in the cause title as against the respondent-husband. He contended that the address shown as against the appellant/wife was a fictitious address and the husband had deliberately given a wrong address in order to secure an ex parte decree.

16. He submitted that the fact that the notices sent through Court and RPAD at the inception were returned with an endorsement ‘address was insufficient’ was itself proof of fact that a wrong and fictitious address had been given.

17. Learned counsel also stated that this was a clear case of fraud being played by the respondent/husband. In order to substantiate his assertions, he brought to our notice the fact that that the petition for divorce which was initiated on 30.11.2015 and was pending till 14.09.2017 and during this period the marriage was registered befor