ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Maharana Dinkar whose marriage was solemnized with Sabita Devi on 28th April 1996 has challenged the judgment dated 12th February 2018 passed in Original Suit No. 461 of 2017 by which the aforesaid suit (hereinafter referred to as the divorce suit) has been decreed in favor of his wife by dissolving their marriage.

2. In the divorce suit which was filed under sections 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sabita Devi (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) pleaded that the family members of her husband were not happy with the gifts given at the time of the marriage and they would pressurize her to engage herself in any job. She further pleaded that on 10th May 2012 she was ousted from her matrimonial home and since then she has been residing in a rented house at Bundu, Ranchi.

3. In the divorce suit which was filed on 11th July 2017, requisition for notice was filed on 29th July 2017 and, awaiting service report, the hearing in the suit was adjourned on 1st September 2017. From proceedings in the divorce suit it appears that without a report on service of summons upon the appellant a liberty was given to the respondent to take steps for substituted service through paper publication, which was promptly availed of by the respondent. Thereafter, the suit was set for exparte hearing by an order dated 15th January 2018 and the respondent examined three witnesses and then the matter was heard and fixed for judgment by an order dated 7th February 2018.

4. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the procedure adopted by the Family Court was illegal inasmuch as a direction for substituted service was issued by the Court without recording its satisfaction that there is reason to believe that the husband was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or, that, for any other reason the summons would not have been served in the ordinary way, the order dated 1st November 2017 directing the respondent to take out paper publication was issued by the Court.

5. The relevant portions of Rule 20 to Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure are extracted below:

“20. Substituted service.-(1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. (1-A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.

(2) Effect of substituted service.-Service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally.

(3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed. Where service is substituted by order of the Court, the Court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the case may require.”

6. We have the benefit of perusing the original records of the divorce suit which have been attached with the present First Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in indicating that even as on 1st November 2017 there was no report on service of summons upon the present appellant and while so the order dated 1st November 2017 directing the respondent to adopt the substituted mode of service by taking out paper publication was illegal. The subsequent proceedings in the divorce suit coming out from such order would therefore affect the final judgment dated 12th