The court upheld the guardianship order, prioritizing the child's welfare and affirming that substituted service is permissible when conventional methods fail, as confirmed by relevant procedural rules.

JUDGMENT :

Also heard Ms. S.E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this appeal, under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the appellant has challenged the ex-parte decree and order dated 03.10.2023, passed in Misc. (G) Case No. 8/2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, and the guardianship certificate, dated 09.11.2023, issued by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar.

3. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, status of the parties as reflected in the petition filed before the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, is adopted herein this appeal.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner and the respondent in Misc. (G) Case No.8/2022, are husband and wife and Mohammedan by religion and the petitioner resides at Borsilla Tea Estate, P.O.- Tiphook, District- Sivasagar and the respondent resides at VIP Road, Dharapur, Azara Home Solution, Guwahati, P.O.- Azara, District- Kamrup(M). The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized socially on 31.12.2009, by Islamic rites and customs before the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Sadar Kazi Dispur, Guwahati, fixing the differed dower at Rs. 1,00,001/- and thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. They were blessed with a girl child on 21.04.2013. However, after their marriage, marital discord surfaced between them and on 12.05.2021, the respondent, his parents and his sister assaulted the petitioner and asked the petitioner to bring some cash from her maternal home, and on refusal by the petitioner, the respondent and his family members drove the petitioner out of their house, along with her daughter. And since then, the petitioner and her daughter have been staying at her maternal home at Borsilla Tea Estate. And since 12.05.2021, the respondent has not been taking care of the petitioner and her daughter, not to speak of providing them with maintenance, and on apprehension that the respondent may snatch away the minor daughter from the custody of the petitioner, she had filed a petition, being No. 1341/2022, for appointment of a guardian and custody of her minor daughter, upon which, the learned District Judge, Sivasagar ("trial Court‟ for short) had registered Misc. (G) Case No. 8/2022, and issued notice to the respondent. The said notice returned with a postal report "not known‟.

Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition No.276/2023, under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC, for publication of the notice/summon to the respondent through local daily Newspapers, by way of substituted service, and then the learned trial Court, having recorded it‟s satisfaction, vide order dated 09.03.2023, that notice issued to the respondent Md. Nasibur Rohman through registered post with A/D had returned unserved with a note on the envelope as "not known‟, and then hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, allowed the petition No. 276/2023, for paper publication of the summon/notice to the respondent in two local newspapers, one in English and one in vernacular, and fixed the matter on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, on 27.04.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the original copies of the two newspapers, wherein notice to the respondent was published, i.e. the Dainik Janambhumi on 30.03.2023 and the Assam Tribune on 05.04.2023. However, the respondent remained absent and therefore, the learned trial Court decided to proceed with