Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The appellant has suffered an ex parte decree of divorce. The application seeking divorce was presented by the respondent husband on the grounds under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Since after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court's record, we are satisfied that the ex parte decree is legally unsustainable, we are not mentioning the minute details of the pleadings between the parties, as any observation on that count may affect the case of either of the party when the matter is retried by the trial Court on merits.

3. For the purposes of examining as to whether the ex parte decree was rightly passed by the trial Court, we have perused the record of the trial Court, from which it can be gathered that the suit was filed on 04.05.2016. On the said date, the Family Court directed for issuance of summons. On the next date i.e. 02.07.2016, the Family Court observed that the registered notice has been returned unserved with endorsement that the notice has left the place. The plaintiff sought time to obtain correct address and pay process fee to the defendant and the matter was posted on 18.07.2016 for submission of correct address of the defendant. On 18.07.2016, the plaintiff sought time to pay process fee on correct address. On 09.09.2016, the plaintiff moved an application for substituted service by publication interalia mentioning that the address mentioned in the plaint is the same as mentioned by the parties in different matrimonial proceedings, yet the summons could not be served on such address, therefore, it appears, the defendant is avoiding to accept notice, thus substituted service by publication is necessary. This prayer was allowed by the trial Court and the notice was published in the Jabalpur Edition of Hindi Daily Navbharat Newspaper dated 18.09.2016. When the defendant did not appear before the Court on 10.11.2016, the Family Court proceeded ex parte and the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 06.12.2016.

4. It is argued that the appellant/defendant has never left the place i.e. C/o V. K. Rai, 18/190, Gayatri Nagar, Katni, District Katni (M.P.), which is the address mentioned in the present appeal also, therefore, the address was proper but the postman never tendered the notice to the appellant and as such at the first instance, genuine effort was not made to serve the appellant. Since the appellant has not avoided to accept the notice at any point of time, the order of publication was bad in law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would argue that the notice by way of publication is sufficient notice of the proceedings to the appellant and since despite such publication the appellant failed to appear, the trial Court rightly proceeded ex parte and the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference.

6. In a recent decision by this Court in the matter of Smt. Renuka Singh vs. Shailesh Singh on 17.07.2017 in FAM No.122/2017, we have referred the provisions contained in Order 5 of CPC to observe thus in paragraphs 14 & 15:-

“14. Rule 17 of Order 5 prescribes the procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found. It provides that if the defendant cannot be found, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. Under Rule 19 of Order 5 of the CPC examination of the serving officer is must where a summons is returned under Rule 17, as above.

15. Upon being satisfied after exami