Judgment A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this Family Court Appeal, original respondent wife is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10th February, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-311/2011, which was G.A. Ghule [P.A.] filed by the present respondent husband, seeking dissolution of marriage by decree U/Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [In short, the "Act of 1955".] 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner wife. He contended that the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad erred in passing ex parte decree for divorce within a short period of 4 1/2 months of institution of the proceeding by the respondent-husband, by accepting the report of the bailiff that he attempted to serve the summons upon the respondent therein, in court premises, and she refused to accept the same. According to the learned counsel for the present appellant the wife has no occasion to remain present in the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad; so as to enable the Bailiff of the Family Court to effect service of summons upon her. 3. In the present matter, the learned counsel for respondent husband did not appear when we heard the appeal yesterday i.e. 21.12.2014 and today also. Initially, when the learned counsel for respondent-husband was appearing in the matter, this court attempted to settle the controversy between the parties by referring the same to the Mediator. However, we have received the report of the Mediator that mediation failed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the Record & Proceedings of the Petition No. A-311/11 in order to satisfy us regarding legality or otherwise of service of summons on the present appellant -wife. Perusal of the record shows that, Respondent husband instituted proceedings U/Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of "the Act of 1955" for divorce on the ground of desertion before the Family Court, Aurangabad on 19th September, 2011. On that day, the leaned Judge of Family Court issued the notice to respondent-wife returnable on 7th October, 2011. Record further shows that, on 21st September, 2011 summons was sent through the Bailiff on the address of wife mentioned in the petition. It was returned back unserved with report of the Process Server/Bailiff dated 17th October, 2011 stating that original respondent wife is not found on the address mentioned in the summons i.e. N-12, B-Sector. Record further shows that, on 21st September, 2011 summons was sent through the Bailiff on the address of wife mentioned in the petition. It was returned back unserved with report of the Process Server/Bailiff dated 17th October, 2011 stating that original respondent wife is not found on the address mentioned in the summons i.e. N-12, B-Sector. The report of Process Server/Bailiff Shri. Mhaske (Exh.5) further states that local residents have stated that respondent is not residing at Sector B of N-12. 5. On perusal of first order sheet, we found that, date on the same is incorrectly recorded by the Family Court as 17.11.2011 instead of 17.10.2011. The matter was then adjourned for return of notice to 17th November, 2011 by allowing application of original petitioner husband for issuing fresh notice. On 17/11/2011 petition was taken up and initially it was recorded in the order sheet that summons is returned back unserved. Thereafter, there is an endorsement on the order sheet that, ex parte order is passed on Exh.No. 1 and then Petition came to be fixed for evidence of original petitioner-husband on 20.12.2011. In this way, matter proceeded ex parte against the original respondent-wife and ultimately decree of divorce U/Section 13(1)(i-b) of "the Act of 1955" on the ground of desertion came to be passed by the learned Judge, Family court, Aurangabad on 10th February, 2012. Same is impugned before this court, in the present Family Court Appeal. 6. The question which falls for determination is, "Whether the learned Judge, Family court, Aurangabad erred in passing ex parte decree by holding service of summons on respondent wife, as proper and legal.? 7. For proper appreciation of the matter, it is apposite to reproduce the order on Exh.1 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, on 17.11.2011 proceeding ex-parte against original respondent wife. It reads thus:- "ORDER Summons report at Exhibit 5 shows that the respondent has refused to accept the summons. So under such circumstances, the petition to proceed ex-parte against the respondent. Sd/- (Illegible) 17.11.2011 Judge, FC, Aurangabad" It is thus clear that the marriage petition proceeded ex-parte only on the basis of report of the Process Server/Bailiff dated 17.11.2011. Let us now examine the said report in order to ascertain whether the due service was effected by following all procedural provisions in that regard. 8. Sd/- (Illegible) 17.11.2011 Judge, FC, Aurangabad" It is thus clear that the marriage petition proceeded ex-parte only on the basis of report of the Process Server/Bailiff dated 17.11.2011. Let us now examine the said report in order to ascertain whether the due service was effected by following all procedural provisions in that regard. 8. Perusal of the report of the Bailiff Shri Mhaske at Exh.No. 5 shows that, initially he made an endorsement thereon on 17th November, 2011 that original respondent -wife has refused to accept the summons. Then the bailiff proceeded to give report on separate page on 17.11.2011 itself stating that respondent wife was found in the court premises at 10.45 a.m., but she refused to accept the summons. Relying on this report of the Bailiff, the learned Judge, Family court proceeded to pass ex parte order against the original respondent-wife which ultimately resulted in passing ex-parte decree of divorce against her. 9. Bear look to the summons -form No. 1 at Exh.No. 5 shows that, the Process Server/Bailiff on 17th October, 2011 as well as 17th November, 2011 has noted that original respondent wife was not available at her given address at N-12, B-Sector and endorsement dated 17th November, 2011 shows that, she refused to accept the summons. This prima facie gives an indication that original Respondent wife on 17th November, 2014 has refused to accept the summons at her given address at N-12, B-Sector. Thereafter, the Process Severing Officer/Bailiff has made an endorsement again on the summons in Form No. 1 (Exh.5) that he is submitting separate report. Then on another sheet of paper, Process Severing Officer/Bailiff Shri. Mhaske has given his report indicating that original respondent wife, who was available in the court premises of Family Court at Aurangabad at 10.45 a.m. on 17th November, has refused to accept the service of summons. Thus, there is reason to believe that, report on separate sheet given by Bailiff Shri. Mhaske which is not even on affidavit appears to be given incorrectly. The same certainly appears to be doubtful. Much substance is, therefore, found in argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/original respondent wife that there was no cause for the wife to remain present in the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad on 17th November, 2012 and as such the report of service of summons on her appears to be incorrect and doubtful. 10. Much substance is, therefore, found in argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/original respondent wife that there was no cause for the wife to remain present in the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad on 17th November, 2012 and as such the report of service of summons on her appears to be incorrect and doubtful. 10. Be that as it may be, let us examine duty of the Presiding Officer of the Court in declaring service of the summons as valid and binding, so as to enable the Court to proceed ex parte against the concerned party. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has framed the rules governing the procedure to be followed by the Family Court. These rules are called as The Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988. Rule 19 of these rules deals with proof of service of summons. It reads as under:- Rule 19 Proof of service of summons :- Unless the Court shall otherwise order, the service of a summons to appear and answer shall be proved by the vakalatnama having been filed or when no vakalatnama has been filed, by evidence showing that the summons was served in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. Such proof shall ordinarily be by the affidavit of the bailiff and (as to such matters as the bailiff cannot speak to of his knowledge) of the person who attended the bailiff for the purpose of identification at the time of service, or of such other person or persons as can speak to the identity of the person served or to other matters necessary to be proved in respect of the service. 11. Thus, in absence of Vakalatnama of the respondent on record of the Family Court, the service of summons on the respondent needs to be proved by showing that the summons is served on such party in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Let us, therefore, consider the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of proof of service of summons on the respondent. Let us, therefore, consider the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of proof of service of summons on the respondent. The provisions of Order V Rules 17 & 19 are relevant on this aspect and they read thus :- ORDER - V Rule 17 :- Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found : Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time] and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. Rule 19. Examination of Serving Officer Where a summons is returned under rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. 12. Basically service of summons is to be made by delivering a copy thereof to the concerned party apart from other modes of service prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the attempt of service is shown to have been made at the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad. 12. Basically service of summons is to be made by delivering a copy thereof to the concerned party apart from other modes of service prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the attempt of service is shown to have been made at the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad. Perusal of Rules 17 and 19 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure show that in order to accept the service as valid service, particularly, when the report is to the effect that the respondent refused to accept the summons then, it become duty of the court to examine the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff if his report is not on affidavit. Even if the Process Serving Officer gives his report on affidavit, discretion is with the court to examine the Process Serving Officer in order to ascertain, whether his report of is correct or not in order to hold the service valid. After complying with these mandatory requirements, the court is require to declare, whether the summons is duly served or not. 13. Harmonious construction of Rules 17 and 19 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure goes to show that acceptance of report of the service of the summons is a serious and solemn act and not merely an empty formality. Object to serve summons on the respondent is to enable him to know about institution of the proceedings against him and enable him to resist the said proceeding filed against him. Law of procedure is framed in such a manner that principle of natural justice is scrupulously followed. The basic requirement of this rule is that the decision should not be reached behind back of the affected party and such party should not be precluded from participating in the proceeding. Therefore, it becomes the prime duty of the Court concerned to see that all procedural requirements are duly adhered to prior to proceeding ex-parte against the concerned party to the litigation. 14. Proof of due service of summons is essential condition for proceeding ex parte against the concern respondent. If record of case in hand is perused, it appears that though the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff has submitted his report stating that, respondent wife has refused to accept the summons in the court premises at 10.45 a.m. of 17.11.2011, he has not filed the same alongwith his affidavit. If record of case in hand is perused, it appears that though the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff has submitted his report stating that, respondent wife has refused to accept the summons in the court premises at 10.45 a.m. of 17.11.2011, he has not filed the same alongwith his affidavit. Another endorsement on summons Exh.No. 5 shows that, the Process Serving Officer has made efforts to serve the original respondent-wife at given address i.e. N-12, B-Sector, 48/7, T.V. Center, HUDCO, Aurangabad, however said report also not accompanied with an affidavit. Order passed below Exh.No. 1 on 17.11.2011 by which the learned Judge, Family Court proceeded ex parte against the respondent wife, does not shows that mandatory provisions as envisaged by Rules 17 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure were complied with by the learned Judge of Family Court. There is no record to show that the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff was examined by the learned Judge Family Court, Aurangabad prior to proceeding ex parte against the respondent wife. As report of the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff at Exhibit 5 relied upon by the learned Judge was to the effect that original respondent/wife has refused to accept the summons when it was sought to be served on her, as per mandate of Rule 19 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Judge to examine said Process Serving Officer/Bailiff on oath or to cause him to be so examined by another Court touching his proceedings. Obviously, the intention of such examination is to see that chances of a false endorsement of such attempt to serve the summons and refusal thereof are minimized. If the Process Serving Officer/Bailiff is examined on oath and during such examination, it is found that the statement so made by him is false, then such Process Serving Officer/Bailiff makes himself liable for prosecution. Thus, there is inbuilt guard against false report regarding service of summons. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not taken precaution to adhere to the provisions of Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure while passing order below Exhibit 1 regarding service of summons on original respondent/wife. In fact, it is seen that the said order below Exhibit 1 was passed in a casual manner not even declaring that the summons has been duly served on respondent/wife. In fact, it is seen that the said order below Exhibit 1 was passed in a casual manner not even declaring that the summons has been duly served on respondent/wife. There seems to be no application of mind to this aspect by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Aurangabad. At least the order below Exh.No. 1 does not show such application of mind. 15. Signature of the original petitioner is appearing on summons at Exh.No. 5 as if to show that refusal to accept the summons by original respondent wife is in his presence. Report on separate sheet given on 17.11.2011 does not bear such signature. Rule 19 of the Family Court Rules, 1988, shows that if bailiff attempted to serve the summons and person refused to accept it then the person who accompanies the Bailiff for the purpose of identification, at the time of service is also required to file his affidavit. In the case in hand, such affidavit of the original petitioner is also missing. Thus even provisions of Rule 17 do not seem to be complied with. For all these reasons, it becomes crystal clear that the learned Judge, Family court erroneously proceeded ex parte against the Respondent-wife and, therefore, impugned judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad dated 10th February, 2012 in Petition No. A-311/2011 cannot be sustained. It needs to be set aside for non-compliance of the Rules mentioned supra, so also the same is violating the principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity of hearing was accorded to the Respondent-wife. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :- ORDER (i) The Family Court Appeal No. 13 of 2013 is allowed. (ii) Impugned Judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-311/2011 between the parties, dissolving their marriage by decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion, is quashed and set aside. (iii) Petition No. A-311 of 2011 is remanded back with directions to the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to decide the same afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. (iv) Record & Proceedings be sent back to the Family Court, Aurangabad, immediately. (v) No order as to costs. (vi) Consequently, pending Civil Application is also disposed of.