Proper service of summons is essential; inaccuracies in address can invalidate ex-parte proceedings and necessitate a hearing for all parties in family disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. This DBCMA under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant-husband against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.42/2019 whereby an application moved on his behalf under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside judgment and decree dated 20.09.2017, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the respondent-wife filed one divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant-husband for dissolution of their marriage, solemnized on 15.05.2010.

3. It is stated that on the aforesaid divorce petition, notices were issued for effectuating service upon the appellant through registered post with AD on 23.03.2017, returnable on 12.05.2019. Thereafter, it was mentioned in the order-sheets that despite service, the appellant did not appear before the court below. However, on account of the fact that the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was kept for 20.07.2017. On that day, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the appellant; and in furtherance thereof ex-parte judgment and decree dated 06.03.2018 was delivered by the court below for granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife and resultantly the marriage solemnized between the parties has been dissolved.

4. In the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant, it has been averred that no notice were ever served upon the appellant-husband. This was for the reason that, at the relevant time when the notices were issued, he was residing at Village Raopura, Post Jarola, Tehsil Borsar, District Anand (Gujarat). However, in the divorce petition, primary address of the appellant was wrongly shown as resident of Batheda, District Udaipur, even though the another address of Raopura, District Anand was mentioned, yet while sending notices, the court below committed a serious mistake as the notice through process server was allegedly sent to the appellant only at the address – Villlage Batheda, District Udaipur. It is submitted that such address was totally incomplete as it did not specify the Tehsil in which Village Batheda is situated, whereas there are more than one village named as Batheda in District Udaipur. It is submitted that although there were directions for sending notices through registered post also, yet there is no reference in the order-sheets to show as to whether the notices sent through registered post were served upon the appellant-husband or not.

5. While referring the report of service drawn by the process server, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that although the notices were never served upon the appellant by the process server, yet an incorrect report has been given and the signatures shown at the summons were fake. It is reiterated that on the report made by the process server, no date of service has been mentioned and even otherwise at the relevant time, the appellant was residing in District Anand at Gujarat, therefore, no question of personal service at Village Batheda District Udaipur was possible.

6. It is further submitted that apart from the aforesaid divorce petition, other litigations were also going on between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. In the criminal case lodged by the respondent-wife, the appellant continued to appear from 26.09.2016 to 11.04.2019, yet during entire proceedings, it was never disclosed by the respondent-wife that she had insti