The Rajasthan High Court has held that serving a summons on a soldier, sailor, or airman through WhatsApp is not valid under the statutory framework, and consequently set aside an ex-parte maintenance order which had been passed based on such service. The court emphasized that for members of the armed forces, special procedures laid down in statutory rules must be followed, and the attempt to effect service via WhatsApp failed to satisfy those mandatory requirements.
In the matter before it, the petitioner was a sepoy in the Indian Army. In proceedings initiated by his wife seeking maintenance, the Family Court attempted personal service of the summons on three occasions, but these efforts were unsuccessful, resulting in the summons being returned unserved. Thereafter, the court sent a summons via WhatsApp to the petitioner’s number, considered it sufficient, and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order in his absence. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.
The Rajasthan High Court noted that under Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, when dealing with members of the armed forces, process must be sent to their Commanding Officer, and sufficient time must be provided so that the member can be relieved to enable appearance before the court. Similarly, Order V Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires summons for a soldier, sailor or airman to be sent to his Commanding Officer. These provisions reflect a legislative recognition of the unique status of armed forces personnel and the need for a specialized mode of service when sued in their personal capacity.
Importantly, the court observed that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted in a battalion in a high altitude area, as certified by his Commanding Officer. Under such operational conditions, the service via WhatsApp could not be deemed sufficient to enable the soldier to prepare for appearance in court. The High Court held that by relying on WhatsApp service, the Family Court had breached the mandatory provisions and thereby violated principles of natural justice, because the petitioner was deprived of a real opportunity to respond.
Given these findings, the High Court quashed the ex-parte maintenance order and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for fresh proceedings consistent with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.