IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1191-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Randhir Singh …..Petitioner Versus Sarabjit Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhindsa for the petitioner.

Mr.N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J .

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-husband for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.05.2018 passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

2. The brief factual matrix is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2017. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 24.08.2017 seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 19.05.2018, the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and granted maintenance to the respondent @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-7) for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.05.2018, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated

01.07.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was residing at Doha (Qatar) from 29.03.2017 to 23.12.2018 and was never properly served. It has been argued that the service through registered cover was defective, the address was incomplete, and the mandatory procedure for effecting service abroad was not complied with. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the proceedings only upon initiation of proceedings by the respondent under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he promptly filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 20.02.2019 for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 19.05.2018.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance.

5. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner revolves around alleged non-service of the summons. However, the record reveals that summons were issued at the village address of the petitioner and the Process Server reported that the petitioner had gone abroad (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, notice was also sent on the address furnished at Doha (Qatar) through registered post on 01.12.2017. The learned Family Court has categorically recorded that notice was dispatched through registered cover at the second address provided by the respondent.

6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sending summons through registered cover cannot amount to proper service is devoid of merit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Once the address was furnished and the summons were dispatched through registered post, a presumption under law arises regarding due service, unless rebutted by cogent evidence. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010(13)

SCC 657. Para 33 of the said judgment reads as under :-

“33. The complainants have denied the receipt of letter dated 3.4.1985 written by the appellant No.2 to the father of the deceased, referred to hereinabove. However, the appellants have produced the correspondence with the post office and proved the postal stamp to show that the said letter had been sent by registered A.D. to Ramkishan Gupta (PW.8). The law in this regard is well settled.

In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, this court examined the issue regarding the presumption of service of letter sent by registered post under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and held as under:

"There is a presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover.... No doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence befo