The Family Court must ensure proper service of summons and make genuine attempts for reconciliation before granting an ex-parte decree of divorce.

CAV JUDGMENT

RAMESH CHAND, J

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

2. The instant miscellaneous of appeal is being filed by the appellant to set aside the order and decree dated 05.11.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 140 of 2015 whereby and where-under the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Jehanabad has been pleased to grant ex-parte decree of divorce in favor of respondent-Husband.

3. The marriage among Appellant and Respondent solemnized in the year 2009 according to Hindu rites and customs and three children were born from the married life of the Respondent- Husband and Appellant-Wife. It is alleged that the Respondent-Husband has tried many times to bring the Appellant-Wife to come to her matrimonial home and to establish the married life, but Appellant- wife is not ready to come to her matrimonial home the appellant-Wife is determined to live alone. She is not prepare and willing to compromise with the husband to re-establish married life.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the appellant was solemnized in the year 2009 with Hindu rituals. He further submits that the appellant is living with the respondent-husband from the day of marriage but the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Case No 67 of 2014 for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2014 with malafide intentions for laying foundation for divorce while the appellant-wife was living peacefully with the respondent-husband. The counsel for the Appellant-wife also submits that the Respondent- husband filed a wrong address and sent summons notice to the Appellant-wife on wrong address along with that the newspaper publication was also done on the wrong place and the appellant-wife had no knowledge about the said case. 5. The learned counsel of the Respondent-Husband submitted that he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case and submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant-wife is not maintainable in the eye of law and stated that proper notice has been served to the Opposite Party-Wife in the Matrimonial Case No. 67 of 2014 before the learned Family Court, Jehanabad for restitution of conjugal rights but it has been wrongly stated by the Appellant-wife in para 1 that the Matrimonial Case No. 67 of 2014 of filed for dissolution of marriage. The Learned Counsel further submits that the Appellant-wife appeared on 20.06.2014 along with her Vakalatnama but did not file her written statement and after several dates, the Appellant-wife did not appear. Thereafter, the Learned family Court, Jehanabad made an ex-parte order and judgment on 10.12.2014. Thereafter the Respondent- Husband filed a Matrimonial case No. 140 of 2015 against the Appellant-wife under section 13 (A) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage, for which notice of summons was issued to the Appellant-wife on several dates by speed-post and thereafter service of notice through newspaper publication was also undertaken, but the Appellant- wife did not appear and subsequently ex-parte judgment was passed on 26.08.2016 in favour of the Respondent-husband. The Learned counsel also submitted that the Appellant-wife has also submitted a self-declaration on 05.05.2017 stating that she does not want to continue her conjugal life with the Respondent-Husband.

6. The arguments have been completed by only Respondent-Husband in the present matter before the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Jehanabad vide Matrimonial Case No. 140 of 2015, whereas, the Appellant-Wife was remained absent before the learned Family Court, and service of notice was not completed. The registry summons received on 07.05.2016 by the Ld. Trial Court was also a blank document enclosed in an envelope.

7. Dealing with the present case, learned trial Court (Family Court) recorded the findings and the appellant-wife was not present during the entire proceedin