R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. Can the service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due on an adult member of the family of the defendant be treated as valid service on the defendant? This is the crucial question that falls for determination in this case.

2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The petitioner has instituted O.P. No. 232 of 2015 in the Family Court, Thalassery for granting a decree of declaration that the marriage between him and the 1st respondent solemnised under the Special Marriage Act is null and void.

3. The 1st respondent is working and residing in Ireland. The lower court issued summons to the 1st respondent by registered post to her address in Ireland and also in Idukki district. The acknowledgment card in respect of the summons sent to the 1st respondent in the address in Ireland was returned without her signature. The acknowledgment card in respect of summons sent to her in the address in Idukki district was returned with the signature purported to be made by her mother.

4. Meanwhile, summons was also issued to the 1st respondent in her Ireland address through the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi. The result of service of the same is awaited. But, according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has now acquired citizenship of Ireland.

5. The petitioner then made an application as I.A. No. 2190 of 2017 before the Family Court, praying that the court may record that the service of summons effected on the mother of the 1st respondent is proper. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Thomas Joseph vs. Catholic Syrian Bank, 1998 (1) KLT 986 the lower court found that, service of summons on the mother of the 1st respondent cannot be treated as proper service on the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 2190 of 2017 was dismissed. The aforesaid order is challenged in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 clearly states that, subject to other provisions in that Act and the Rules, provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and of any other law for the time being in force, shall apply to suits or proceedings before the Family Court, other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also stated that a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of the provisions of the Code and shall have all the powers of such court. Therefore, the procedure for service of summons in suits instituted before a Family Court is governed by the provisions of the Code.

8. Service of summons is dealt with in Sections 27 to 29 and Order V the Code. Section 27 of the Code provides that, where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and may be served in the manner prescribed.

9. Rules 9 to 30 of Order V of the Code deal with service of summons. Rule 19A provided for simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service. But, Rule 19A which was inserted by Act 104 of 1976, stands deleted with effect from 01.07.2002 by Act 46 of 1999. However, Rule 9 was substituted by Act 22 of 2002. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 provides that, where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, or has an agent residing within that jurisdiction, who is empowered to accept the service of the summons, the summons shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be delivered or sent either to the proper officer to be served by him or one of his subordinates or to such courier services as are approved by the court. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 provides that, service of summons may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgment due, addressed to the defendant or to his agent empowered