The importance of following proper procedures for serving notice and providing the respondent with a fair opportunity to contest the case before the trial court.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in MAT Appeal No. 1 of 2018.

The Appellant being the Petitioner had filed an application under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent-Opposite Party. That application having been allowed ex parte by dissolving the marriage between the parties, the Respondent had carried the Appeal. The Appellate Court after hearing and on going through the record having set aside the ex parte order of dissolution of marriage between the parties, has remanded the matter to the Trial Court permitting the Respondent to file the written statement for its consideration and directing the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by further providing the parties to lea evidence and argue their case.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Trial Court having taken the pain in sending, notice to the Respondent on several occasions did commit no mistake in passing the ex parte order when the Respondent being adamant refused to receive the notice. He further submits that the very move of the Respondent from the beginning was to protract the matter without having intention as to reunion or disposal on merit and under the given situation, the Lower Appellate Court is thus not correct in further remanding the matter. He also submits that the view taken by the Lower Appellate Court that the Respondent refusing to accept the notice had nothing to gain in the facts and circumstance is not right when in reality the purpose was to harass the Appellant which has not been taken note of. He therefore urges for admission of the Appeal formulating the above substantial questions of law.

3. Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned judgment in the Appeal being perused, paragraph-8 appears to be relevant for the purpose.

The Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the Appellant for his dissolution of marriage with the Respondent ex parte. The Respondent had been said ex parte therein on the basis of the report of the process server that she refused to receive the notice of the proceeding. Judgments of the courts below do not reveal that while sending the notice to the Respondent through the process of the court simultaneously notice through registered post had also been sent. The Respondent as is seen has challenged that ex parte order without any such gross delay.

In that situation, the Lower Appellate Court having taken a view that by refusing to accept the notice the Respondent who is a working woman had nothing to gain and thus has made out a case for being given an opportunity to contest the case before the Trial Court afresh; this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that any substantial question of law surfaces meriting admission of this Appeal.

4. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.