Report No. 140
4.6. A case from Rajasthan.-
In a Rajasthan case,1 the question arose in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband had sought divorce on the ground of adultery of the wife. The summons (notice) was received unserved. The court then passed an order for service afresh, and also ordered that another set of notices be sent by registered post to the wife. The notices sent by registered post were returned with the report "refused". The High Court then ordered that the service was sufficient and, after recording evidence, passed an ex parte decree for divorce.
The wife petitioned to set aside the ex parte decree, alleging that the summons had not been served upon her and that the question of refusal of summons, sent at her Rattangarh address, did not arise, because at that time, she was at Delhi with her father's sister. After recording evidence and arguments with reference to the above point, the Court held that the summons had not been proved to have been duly served. In the instant case, the postal employee was not examined to find out whether either the wife or her agent, had refused to receive the envelope containing the notice sent by registered post. There was some suggestion that the refusal was by the father, but obviously, the father was not the wife's "agent". Hence the court held that the ex parte decree should be set aside.
1. Chandrakala v. Banshidhar, 1984 HLR 225 (233), para. 18 (Raj) (Dwarka Prasad, J.).
Back
