IMPORTANT POINT
Substituted service of notice is permissible under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the defendant resides outside India and direct service fails.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent is a citizen of the Philippines and is residing in the Philippines and since the petitioner has taken all steps to see that notice to the respondent is duly served, the service of notice could not be effected. It is submitted that it was in the above circumstances that the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2023 for effecting notice through substituted service via paper publication through online Hindu newspaper which has circulation in South East Asia. It is submitted that the I.A. was dismissed on the ground that the rules do not permit allowing the said prayer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Shameer v. T.P. Abdul Majeed, 2022 (2) KLT 79 : 2022 (2) KHC 642 wherein it was held that in a case where the defendant resides outside India, the provisions of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked with necessary modification and if all other norms for service of summons have failed, then, the courts can order notice through substituted service by paper publication in a newspaper having wide publication in the country and area where the defendant habitually resides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent habitually resides in the Philippines and that the last known addresses are provided in the O.P., but notice could not be served in spite of best efforts. It is further submitted that ‘The New Paper’ and ‘Mothership’ are two newspapers being published in the Philippines in English language and that the said newspapers have wide circulation in the Philippines. It is submitted that the respondent is a person who is well versed in English language and that in case the notice is taken by substituted service through paper publication, there is every chance that the respondent will receive notice of the O.P.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the averments and the contentions raised, there will be a direction to the Family Court to permit the petitioner to take notice of the O.P. to the respondent by substituted service through paper publication in the newspapers as stated by the petitioner, which have wide circulation in the Philippines.

6. This OP (FC) is ordered accordingly.