V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent though he is served.

2. Appellant in this Family Court Appeal is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai dated 17/11/2004 whereby the Petition filed by the Appellant for declaration that she is not a legally wedded wife of the Respondent and that she had never married the Respondent and the purported marriage be declared as null and void. The Family Court Appeal was admitted on 11/1/2005. After the appeal was admitted, Respondent was served and he engaged an advocate to appear on his behalf. Vakalatnama was filed by the said advocate which was duly signed by the Respondent. His advocate however expired in 2009 and therefore notice was issued to him to enable him to appoint another advocate. Despite best efforts taken by the Appellant to serve the Respondent, he could not be served. An application was made therefore by the Appellant to serve the Respondent by substituted service. Accordingly, permission was granted to the Appellant to serve the Respondent by substituted service. The Bailiff w