1. This first appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2010 in and by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court dissolved the marriage of the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband solemnized on 11.07.2009.

2. The case of the respondent-husband was that he married with the appellant-Mala Kumari on 11.07.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the respondent-husband and appellant-wife came to Deoghar to live together in a rented house of Smt. Rina Devi and they lived together till 28.09.2009. Thereafter differences arose between the parties and the relation between the spouses became strained. Alleging that the appellant-wife namely Mala Kumari is mentally sick and that she was having abnormal behaviour and also is of unsound mind and suffering continuously from the alleged mental disorder and that she had been threatening to commit suicide, the respondent-husband filed the Matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2010 seeking dissolution of their marriage.

3. A Divorce Petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed on 03.04.2010 in the Family Court but the appellant did not appear in the Court and, therefore, the Family Court ordered paper publication in the local daily newspaper and the matter was decided ex-parte.

4. To substantiate the allegations, the respondent-husband examined himself as P.W.-5 and also examined four other witnesses namely Raina Devi, P.W.-1, Hari Kishore Singh, P.W.-2, Anjani Devi, P.W.-3 and Dr. Sudhir Kumar, P.W.-4.

5. Pointing out that inspite of several efforts being made, the appellant-wife did not appear in the Court and that the respondent-husband had proved the allegations by examining the witnesses, the Family Court allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of appellant and respondent.

6. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte decree passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2010, the appellant-wife has preferred the present First Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that as per the order sheet, the Matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2010 was admitted and notice was issued to the present appellant for which, requisite was filed on 13.04.2010 and thereafter a Nazarath notice through the Civil Court, Bhagalpur was ordered to be sent to the appellant and thereafter paper publication was made and finally the court accepted the same as valid service of notice on the appellant-wife and fixed the case for ex-parte hearing on 13.09.2010 and the matter was decided ex-parte. It was further submitted that Nazarath notice was not sent as directed by the Family Court to Civil Court, Bhagalpur where the appellant was residing. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife further submitted that the publication was effected in the daily newspaper published from Patna and Deoghar and no publication was effected in the local newspaper published from Bhagalpur. It is submitted that the paper publication was effected in daily newspaper namely „Prabhat Khabar? and „Aaj? only in Patna and Deoghar Edition even though those newspapers are having Bhagalpur Edition and the respondent-husband knowingly published the notice only in the newspaper of Patna and Deoghar Edition despite the order of the Court to get it published in the Bhagalpur Edition and since the publication was not effected in the Bhagalpur Edition of newspapers, the family Court ought not to held that there was a valid service of notice.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 11.07.2009 and in violation of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the divorce case was filed on 03.04.2010 even before expiry of one year from the date of solemnization of marriage and in view of violation of mandatory provisions, an opportunity should be given to the appellant to contest the matter. It was also submitted that the respondent-husband made serious