Judgment RAJESH BADIA, R. S. CHAUHAN, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the ex parte divorce decree passed against the appellant by the Family Court, Jodhpur. Amongst other grounds, the appellant has stated that she was never served with the notice of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act before the Family Court, Jodhpur. ( 2 ) A perusal of the record goes to show that the appellants contention is justified. Application under Section 13 was presented on 22. 1. 2002 and notices were directed to be issued for 18. 3. 2002. On 18. 3. 2002 the Presiding officer was not present and case was adjourned to 7. 5. 2002. On 3. 4. 2002, on an application of the applicant-husband alleging that the non-applicant wife was avoiding service, the case was taken up by preponing the date and order was made for issuing fresh summons by the registered post and also for taking dasti notices to be served on the respondent-present appellant. The Court directed on request of the applicant-husband to issue summons by dasti through Family Court, Jaipur and the next date was fixed on 7. 5. 2002. The notices were also directed to be issued by registered post. ( 3 ) APPARENTLY, preponing the date and making an order on such application was wholly unjustified, 18. 3. 2002 was the first date of hearing after application under Section 13 was moved. No report was made by the officer that notices had returned unserved or otherwise. Presiding Officer was on leave. In these, circumstances , the allegation by husband that wife is avoiding service was highly interested statement by a person who was in a hurry to dissolve marriage and his intent to keep the other side out of proceedings was obvious. On 7. 5. 2002, the learned Judge, Family Court recorded without reference to as to what has happened to notices sent by Court and given dasti to applicant-husband, that a telegram has been received from the respondent-present appellant, therefore, she was assumed to be present and next date was fixed on 28. 6. 2002. The non-applicant was not present on any of the successive dates and on 3. 12. 2002 an order was made for proceeding ex parte. 6. 2002. The non-applicant was not present on any of the successive dates and on 3. 12. 2002 an order was made for proceeding ex parte. ( 4 ) THE record of the proceedings of Family court, Jodhpur shows that the registered notice sent at the Jaipur address of respondent has been returned by the Postal Department with an endorsement "not Found". One set of notice which were submitted by the applicant husband along with an application for preponing the date and issue of notice dasti is lying in the record of the proceedings along with a copy of the application. No other document showing that service has been effected on non-applicant wife appears to be on record else it would have been noticed by the Court. No order has been recorded as to what happened to notices issued by the Court. Therefore , it is apparent that there was no material on record on 7. 5. 2002 to suggest that the notices issued for 7. 5. 2002 had been served either through Family Court, Jaipur or by registered post. ( 5 ) APPARENTLY, notice sent for 18. 3. 2002 had not been served and the same must be in the knowledge of the applicant-husband, which is clear from the fact that notwithstanding it was the first date after issue of notices on filing of petition, said notices were not received back by that date and no reporting about fate of notices issued for the date 18. 3. 2002 was noticed by the Court, the applicant made an application that respondent is delaying the proceedings by avoiding service. Along with the application process fee and notices were filed. On his request the file was taken up for making orders prior to the date fixed for the purpose and orders were made for issuing fresh summons by registered post as well as by dasti for getting the notice served through Family court, Jaipur. However, notices filed along with this application are still lying in file. ( 6 ) AT this juncture it will be appropriate to notice that the full set of notices issued for 18. 3. 2002 is also available on record. The process servers report, on face value shows that when he went for service the house was closed. However, notices filed along with this application are still lying in file. ( 6 ) AT this juncture it will be appropriate to notice that the full set of notices issued for 18. 3. 2002 is also available on record. The process servers report, on face value shows that when he went for service the house was closed. This is apart from the fact that there is some interpolation in the date, when he allegedly went to serve the notice. It does not show whether any effort was made to serve the notices before 18. 3. 2002 or the process server just made a report by once going at the given address and made the report. It does not even show whether the process server reached the house of respondent or of somebody else. However, the Court neither in the order dated 18. 3. 2002 nor anytime thereafter made reference to this notice and report. ( 7 ) IT shows that only because of a telegram received from P and T department, Jodhpur, the court assumed the service of notice and deemed presence of non-applicant wife. Suffice it to say that mere receipt telegram does not give rise to any presumption, in the circumstances, that it was booked by the person on whose behalf it purports to have been booked. Telegram can be booked by any person in the name of any other person. No presumption of service could have been dranw on 7. 5. 2002 on the basis of the receipt of telegram only. ( 8 ) DURING the course of hearing learned counsel appearing for husband has placed before us a photostat copy of the certified copy of notice purported to have been served on the wife by affixing the same at her place of residence, on her denial to accept the same. It purports to be by same process server, who had returned the earlier notices for 18. 3. 2002 by reporting that house was closed. The certified copy obtained by husband has not been produced. The applicant-husband, who is present in the Court stated that certified copy has been placed on record of another proceedings, however, he was unable to disclose the particulars of such other proceedings. The photostat certified copy produced before us is on two separate sheets. First sheet-is the form of summons which has been issued for 7. 5. The applicant-husband, who is present in the Court stated that certified copy has been placed on record of another proceedings, however, he was unable to disclose the particulars of such other proceedings. The photostat certified copy produced before us is on two separate sheets. First sheet-is the form of summons which has been issued for 7. 5. 2002 on which there are initials of the party dated 11. 4. 2002 and its presentation is dated 11. 4. 2002. The second sheet is purported to be of the back side of the summons issued for 7. 5. 2002, which shows that report was prepared and submitted by the process server Mohd. All that notices have been served by affixation. It does not have attestation of any motbirs. The counter signatures appear to have been of 26. 4. 2002. In fact no such document of which it purports to be certified copy is on record in the part D of the record, where all other summons find place with due paging. It was ultimately found that a document corresponding to photocopy was lying in Part A after page A 5/1 and before A-22/ 1, which is original application filed by the respondents. No report about receipt of this document could be found in record of proceedings, nor it bears any pagination when all other papers placed in respective parts are paginated as per respective part of record. The document read on the top that it was to be served by "nisa Dehi" and was given "dasti" to applicant. However, there is no report about receipt of dasti notices by the serving Court, nor the process servers report shows that the non applicant-appellant was sought to be served by "nisa Dehi" of applicant or any person on his behalf or otherwise. Report of process server, who had earlier allegedly gone to the house of appellant to find it locked, reads that he could reach the place where appellant resided only after asking people in the area. While he reports about meeting people who could answer his queries in the area, he nonchalantly states that no person was there to witness the denial of notice by the appellant. This makes the correctness of this report highly suspect and leaves much to be desired. While he reports about meeting people who could answer his queries in the area, he nonchalantly states that no person was there to witness the denial of notice by the appellant. This makes the correctness of this report highly suspect and leaves much to be desired. ( 9 ) IT also does not stand to reason that had such notice was placed on the top of record even above the application, yet on record of service by affixation was noticed by the Court but only reference was made to receipt of telegram from which it cannot be known whether it was actually sent by the person whom it is purported to have been given. It is strange, on successive three dates such telegrams find place on record but no reference to them have been made. This fact also leaves room for doubt that this document has been surreptitiously placed on record later on after the proceedings were ordered to proceed ex parte. ( 10 ) IT appears to us that the husband has tried to play smart for securing the ex parte decree against the wife. This apprehension is fortified from the fact that the notices were issued for the first time for 18. 3. 2002 and on 18. 3. 2002 the Presiding Officer was not present and case was adjourned to 7. 5. 2002 directing the applicant to file notices and P. P. , until then the notices sent earlier had not even returned. No note of its fate was noticed. Notwithstanding that only one date has passed and wife was not served because her house was found closed. Still an application was moved by the husband on 3. 4. 2002 to take the matter prematurely by alleging deliberate avoidance of notice by wife. The Family Court without considering the fact appears to have mechanically allowed the application and directed that the notices be served dasti as well as by registered post. However, as noticed above the document available on record does not fortify that summons were sought to be served by "nisa Dehi" as per direction on the top. Had the applicant took the notices dasti to Family court, Jaipur for service, he would certainly been available to identify the wife so as to ensure that notices are served on correct person. But no evidence of such process having been followed appear from the said document. Had the applicant took the notices dasti to Family court, Jaipur for service, he would certainly been available to identify the wife so as to ensure that notices are served on correct person. But no evidence of such process having been followed appear from the said document. The court has also not accepted the fact of service on the basis of report of process server about the denial of notice by the lady, but has assumed service on the basis of telegram allegedly sent by wife. ( 11 ) WE have already noticed that the envelope of notice sent by registered post is available on record which has been returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "not found". In these circumstances , it was highly improper that the Court proceeded on the basis of a telegram which purportedly emanates from Jaipur but has been delivered under the seal of Jodhpur Postal Authorities. The telegram can be sent by anyone in any one elses name. ( 12 ) IN this background, it is noticed that this Court has been sought to be convinced about service of petition on non-applicant wife not on the basis of telegram but by producing photostat copy of certified copy alleged to have been obtained by husband showing service by affkation of the same on denial, which is highly suspect nature and even on face value does not satisfy the test of service by denial. It clearly makes out a case that ex parte decree has been obtained without effecting service on the non-applicant wife, ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, appeal is allowed with costs. Judgment under appeal is set aside and case is remanded back to Family Court, jodhpur to decide it afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to appellant-wife to plead her case. Cost of this appeal is quantified Rs. 5,000/- ( 14 ) THE parties shall appear before the family Court, Jodhpur on 1st August 2005. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, Jodhpur, husband shall pay Rs. 2,000/- by way of interim maintenance to his wife for maintaining herself and the child. Maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of appeal before this Court and arrears of maintenance shall be deposited within three months. However, current maintenance amount shall be deposited in Family Court by 15th of every month, which the wife will be permitted to withdraw. Maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of appeal before this Court and arrears of maintenance shall be deposited within three months. However, current maintenance amount shall be deposited in Family Court by 15th of every month, which the wife will be permitted to withdraw. Appeal allowed.