High Court of Karnataka Allows Wife's Appeal Against Ex Parte Divorce Decree for Lack of Proper Service. Family Court's Finding of Sufficient Service Based on 'Refused' Endorsement Set Aside as Notice Was Not Properly Addressed.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant-wife married the respondent-husband on 10.7.2005 and they have a male child. On 26.3.2012, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Notice was ordered to the wife, but the process server reported that she had gone to Bangalore. Notice was reissued by RPAD, which was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. The Family Court held service sufficient and proceeded ex parte on 30.7.2012. The husband led evidence and the Family Court granted divorce on 6.2.2013. The wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, contending that she was not served and had no opportunity to defend. The High Court noted that the notice was sent to the wife's parental address despite the husband knowing she was in Bangalore. The court held that the service was not sufficient and the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Family Court were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after giving the wife an opportunity of hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 11.8.2014.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Divorce - Ex Parte Decree - Service of Notice - Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The wife appealed against an ex parte divorce decree granted on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court held service of notice sufficient based on a 'refused' endorsement on RPAD. The High Court found that the notice was not properly addressed as it was sent to the wife's parental address despite the husband knowing she was in Bangalore. Held that the service was not sufficient and the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside to give the wife an opportunity of hearing (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Family Court was justified in holding that service of notice on the wife was sufficient and proceeding ex parte, thereby granting divorce without giving the wife an opportunity of hearing.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 06.02.2013 passed in M.C.No.86/2012 by the Family Court at Belgaum is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 11.08.2014.

Law Points

  • Service of notice
  • sufficient service
  • ex parte decree
  • refusal of notice
  • Family Courts Act
  • Hindu Marriage Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (KAR) (07) 10

M.F.A.No.22031/2013 (FC)

2014-07-09

Dr. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala, Mr. Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar

Sri V.M. Sheelvant (for appellant), Sri V.P. Kulkarni (for respondent)

Smt. Sakshi @ Shweta W/o Sunil Raikar

Sri Sunil S/o Dattaram Raikar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against ex parte divorce decree

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of ex parte divorce decree and remand for fresh hearing

Filing Reason

Wife was not served with notice and was denied opportunity to defend divorce petition

Previous Decisions

Family Court at Belgaum allowed divorce petition ex parte on 06.02.2013 in M.C.No.86/2012

Issues

Whether service of notice on the wife was sufficient to proceed ex parte? Whether the ex parte divorce decree should be set aside to give the wife an opportunity of hearing?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant-wife contended that she was not served with notice and was not aware of the proceedings; she was denied opportunity to defend. Respondent-husband argued that notice was sent by RPAD and returned with 'refused' endorsement, which constitutes sufficient service.

Ratio Decidendi

Service of notice by RPAD with a 'refused' endorsement does not constitute sufficient service when the notice was not properly addressed to the correct address of the party, especially when the serving party had knowledge of the party's actual whereabouts. An ex parte decree passed without proper service is liable to be set aside to afford the affected party an opportunity of hearing.

Judgment Excerpts

Since notice issued to the appellant-wife was returned as refused, the Family Court held service of notice on the wife was as sufficient. The notice was sent to the wife's parental address despite the husband knowing she was in Bangalore. The service was not sufficient and the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside to give the wife an opportunity of hearing.

Procedural History

On 26.3.2012, husband filed divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act. Notice was ordered, returned unserved as wife had gone to Bangalore. Reissued by RPAD, returned with 'refused' endorsement. Family Court held service sufficient on 12.6.2012. Wife placed ex parte on 30.7.2012. Husband led evidence. Family Court granted divorce on 6.2.2013. Wife filed appeal under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act on 9.7.2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Family Courts Act, 1984: 19(1)
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Wife's Appeal Against Ex Parte Divorce Decree for Lack of Proper Service. Family Court's Finding of Sufficient Service Based on 'Refused' Endorsement Set Aside as Notice Was Not Properly Addressed.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Rejection of Sonography Centre Registration Renewal for Violation of Natural Justice under PCPNDT Act. Civil Surgeon's Order Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Section 19B(4) and Failure to Provide Hearing...