The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an ex-parte divorce decree granted by a Family Court in favor of a wife, ruling that the service of notice to the husband was insufficient. The Family Court had treated the notice as duly served after it was returned with the endorsement "refusal," based on the husband's mother declining to accept the notice in his absence. The High Court held that such a refusal by a person other than the addressee or their authorized agent does not constitute valid service under the law.
In this case, the appellant husband challenged the Family Court's decision, arguing that the process server's report indicated that the notice was offered to his mother, who stated that her son was out of station and refused to accept the envelope related to court proceedings. The appellant contended that this could not be considered a refusal by him personally. The wife's counsel, however, argued that the refusal by the husband's mother, being a major family member, was appropriately treated as valid service.
The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sandeep Taneja observed that for a refusal to constitute valid service, it must be made by the addressee or their authorized agent. The Court emphasized that a refusal by any other person, including the husband’s mother, cannot be deemed a refusal in the eyes of the law. The Bench noted that the Family Court had erred in treating the notice as duly served based solely on the mother's refusal.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the ex-parte divorce decree and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, ensuring that proper service of notice is effected to the appellant husband. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures for service of notice and reinforces the principle that a divorce decree cannot be granted without ensuring that the respondent has been adequately informed and given an opportunity to be heard.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.