Latest Judgement

1. The registered cover records six attempts at the address.
2. The process server’s report indicated that the notice was offered to the husband’s mother, who said he was away and refused to accept any envelope relating to court proceedings.
3. There was a prior report from the Additional District Judge (Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, Gujarat) dated 4 August 2023 which stated the husband was not served.
4. The High Court emphasised that refusal by a person other than the addressee or his authorised agent cannot be treated as valid service for the purpose of ex parte proceedings.

1. Order V Rule 9(5) CPC
   Order V Rule 9(5) CPC provides:
   “If the defendant without sufficient cause refuses to take the summons tendered to him, or to sign the acknowledgment of the summons, the court may, after proof of refusal, declare service to be complete.”
   Thus, valid service by refusal requires: (i) tender of summons to the addressee or his authorised agent; (ii) actual refusal to accept; and (iii) proof of such refusal. The court may then declare service.
2. Presumption of Service Under Section 114, Evidence Act or General Clauses Act
   In past jurisprudence (including Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Suhomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602), the Supreme Court held that a registered letter returned marked “refused” raises a presumption of tender and refusal, but this is rebuttable by evidence pointing to absence of tender or that the addressee was not the person who refused.
3. Matrimonial Jurisdiction and Fair Hearing
   In litigation under HMA Section 13 (divorce) and Section 10 (judicial separation), the Family Court must ensure the spouse is given a proper opportunity to appear, defend, file a written statement, and be heard on the merits. When one spouse is absent, an ex parte decree may be granted only after ensuring that service was effected in strict compliance with law and the noticee had opportunity to defend.

1. Validity of Service Not Established
   The High Court found that the envelope bore an endorsement “refused”, but the record did not identify who refused, and crucially revealed that the summons had been offered to the appellant’s mother, not the appellant or an authorised agent. The Court observed:
   “A refusal … should be taken to be a sufficient service if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself/herself. A denial by any other person other than the noticee or his agent, including the mother … cannot be said to be a refusal in the eye of law.”Thus, the presumption under registered post endorsement was successfully rebutted.
2. Agent-Authorisation Absent
   The Court noted there was no record showing that the husband had authorised his mother as his agent. Without such authorisation, her refusal cannot be imputed to him.
3. MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS AND ADDRESS INDICATION
   Even though the registered cover disclosed six attempts at the address, the fact that no tender to the addressee or his agent was effected weighed heavily. The Court found it indicative of non-availability, not of valid service.
4. CONSEQUENCE: QUASHING OF EX PARTE DECREE
   Because proper service was not proved, the ex parte proceedings were vitiated, and the Court set aside both the ex parte order (dated 18 August 2023) and the divorce decree dated 15 September 2023. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings with direction to issue fresh summons and allow the husband to file his written statement.
5. COMPARATIVE DISTINCTION
   The Court distinguished the jurisprudence under the Negotiable Instruments Act (for example, C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555) as inapplicable to matrimonial proceedings where service of a civil summons under CPC is the norm.

1. FOR FAMILY COURTS AND PRACTITIONERS
   1. Before awarding ex parte divorce under HMA Section 13, courts must rigorously verify service of summons — merely relying on postal endorsement is insufficient if the tender to the addressee or authorised agent is not shown.
   2. Family Court registries and process-servers must ensure records indicate to whom the notice was offered, whether the recipient was the addressee or authorised agent, and whether refused or unclaimed status.
   3. Practitioners must advise clients on the importance of proper service and challenge ex parte proceedings when service is questionable.
2. FOR LITIGANTS
   1. A spouse faced with ex parte divorce may challenge the decree on grounds of invalid service — such challenge may succeed even if much time has elapsed, provided fairness is compromised.
   2. Conversely, petitioning spouses aspiring to ex parte relief must ensure service is effected in strict compliance with the law to avoid quashing later.
3. DOCTRINAL AND POLICY REFLECTIONS
   1. The decision reinforces the principle of fair hearing (audi alteram partem) in matrimonial matters. Because marriage affects fundamental personal status and rights, ex parte termination cannot be sustained on a shaky procedural foundation.
   2. It signals that matrimonial courts will not act as default-granting machines; even the absence of party is not sufficient reason for mechanically proceeding.
   3. On policy, the judgment promotes procedural safeguards and discourages forum shopping or hasty ex parte rituals.
4. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE QUESTIONS
   1. The case covers service by registered post, but what of service by personal summons, substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, or electronic means? Future courts must clarify how these modes intersect with matrimonial proceedings.
   2. While the Court directed fresh proceedings, delays inherent in family litigation remain a concern; courts should consider timelines and perhaps fast-track remanded matters.
   3. In cross-jurisdictional settings (e.g., one spouse abroad), how best to ensure effective service remains an open practical challenge.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.