The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient service of notice in divorce proceedings, and the consequences of insufficient service on the validity of ex parte judgments and decrees.

1. Instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned Family Court dated 3.9.2013 accepting application filed by the respondent under Order 9 R.13 CPC read with application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay setting aside the ex parte proceedings initiated against the respondent vide order dated 3.6.2005 & ex parte judgment & decree dated 31.3.2006 and as consequence thereof, restored the divorce petition-187/2002 filed by the appellant.

2. As it reveals from the record, the appellant filed application-187/2002 u/S.13 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on 31.3.2002 and at one stage, the order was passed by the learned Family Court initiating ex parte proceedings against the respondent (wife) vide order dated 3.6.2005 and in furtherance thereof ex parte judgment & decree was granted in favour of the appellant on 31.3.2006 dissolving their marriage solemnized on 8.2.1971.

3. It can be noticed from the record that from this wedlock they have four children (three daughters and one son) and all are grown up and married & son is present in Court who too is married and father of two minor children.

4. When application-187/02 came to be filed by the appellant seeking divorce u/S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act obviously it could have processed after the notice being served upon respondent and the learned Family Court recorded factum of sufficiency of service upon respondent and as she failed to appear and participate in the proceedings order was passed initiating ex parte proceedings against her vide order dated 3.6.2005 and as she failed to appear thereafter ex parte judgment & decree came to be passed accepting application filed by the appellant u/S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving their marriage vide order dated 31.3.2006.

5. It revealed from the record that the fact of passing of orders dated 3.6.2005 & 31.3.2006 came in the knowledge of respondent somewhere in 2009 and immediately thereafter she filed application under Order 9 R.13 CPC on 9.12.2009 along with application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and alleged that she was completely unaware of a petition if any being filed by appellant no.187/2002 and service of the divorce petition filed by the appellant was never effected upon her and at the stage when all the four children are grown up and married and she is also almost near the age of senior citizen, the learned Family Court taking note of the pleadings came on record, observed that the note regarding service of notice upon the respondent is factually incorrect and no supporting evidence is available on record and further observed that in absence of effective service upon the respondent order dated 3.6.2005 and ex parte judgment & decree dated 31.3.2006 was not legally sustainable and set aside initiating ex parte proceedings and judgment & decree and restored the divorce petition-187/2002 to be heard on merits.

6. The appellant present in person submits that service being properly effected upon respondent and if she failed to appear, no error was committed by the learned Family Court in passing the orders dated 3.6.2005 & 31.3.2006 dissolving their marriage and this is an apparent error which the learned Family Court committed in setting aside the judgment & decree dated 31.3.2006 vide order dated 3.9.2013.

7. The respondent appeared in person supported the order of the learned Family Court and submits that there was no effective service upon her of divorce petition-187/2002 and in absence of a fair & reasonable opportunity being afforded, judgment & decree dated 31.3.2006 of the learned Family Court cannot be permitted to sustain.

8. We have heard the parties in person and perused the material on record.

9. We find cogent reason forthcoming in support of the finding being recorded by the Family Court in holding that there was no sufficient service of notice in respect of divorce petition upon respondent and the order dated 3.6.2005 and ex parte judgment &