JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Mamata Mayee Sahoo under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela passed in Civil Proceeding No. 13 of 2012 in allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ex parte and declaring the affidavit marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 14.1.2011 and the temple marriage between them on 21.1.2011 as null and void. 2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant with a prayer to pass an order declaring the marriage between the parties as void and to pass a decree of nullity. The petition was presented before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela on 17.1.2012 and accordingly C.P. No. 13 of 2012 was registered. It is the case of the respondent that he was an Engineering Graduate of 2011 from BPUT, Orissa, but since he was unemployed, he was residing with his father at Rourkela. The appellant was also at that point of time residing in Rourkela though she was a permanent resident of Cuttack. It is the further case of the respondent that in the 1st week of January, 2011, he received a telephone call on his mobile from a lady wishing him New Year greetings. Subsequently, the unknown caller divulged her name as "Mamata" and asked the respondent to keep friendship with her and continued to keep on chatting over phone. She also requested the respondent to visit her at Cuttack. It is the further case of the respondent that on 13.1.2011, the respondent had been to Bhubaneswar in connection with his examination and there he received a call from Mamata who invited him to visit her during his return journey and accordingly he visited the house of the appellant which is situated at Rajendranagar at Cuttack where the appellant was residing with her family. The appellant along with her family members enquired from the respondent about his family background. The respondent had neurological problem at that point of time and was in a state of mental depression and he fell sick. The appellant along with her family members enquired from the respondent about his family background. The respondent had neurological problem at that point of time and was in a state of mental depression and he fell sick. Taking advantage of the situation, the appellant and her family members insisted the respondent to stay in their house and accordingly the respondent stayed there during the night. On 14.1.2011, during afternoon, the respondent was taken to the Court premises at Cuttack by the family members of the appellant where they got an affidavit sworn by the respondent declaring that the respondent had married the appellant. According to the case of the respondent, as on 14.1.2011 he has not attended the marriageable age of 21 years, as her date of birth is 10.6.1990. The respondent was administered with some medicine for which he felt drowsy and he was compelled to remain in the house of the appellant. It is the further case of the respondent that on 21.1.2011, he was taken to village Bilasuni where in a temple, his mock marriage was performed with the appellant. Even the father and guardian of the family of the respondent were not informed about such marriage. Two to three days thereafter, the respondent came back to Rourkela and after coming to Rourkela, he prepared himself for the final Engineering Examination under B.P.U.T. During October, 2011, the respondent had been to his native place and was returning back to Rourkela via Cuttack and at Badambadi Bus Stand, he was threatened by the father of the appellant and some of his driver friends and they insisted him to keep relationship with the appellant. The respondent got a job in Raipur at Chhatisgarh in November, 2011 in a Company and joined there. On 19.12.2011, the appellant alongwith her three unknown boyfriends arrived there and tried to kidnap the respondent, but the respondent somehow managed to escape from the place and came to Rourkela. The respondent got a job in Raipur at Chhatisgarh in November, 2011 in a Company and joined there. On 19.12.2011, the appellant alongwith her three unknown boyfriends arrived there and tried to kidnap the respondent, but the respondent somehow managed to escape from the place and came to Rourkela. According to the case of the respondent, there was no marital relationship between the parties and the affidavit which was sworn on 14.1.2011 as well as the mock marriage ceremony which was solemnised on 21.1.2011 contravenes the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and since on both the dates i.e. 14.1.2011 as well as 21.1.2011, the respondent had not attended the prescribed age of marriage is 21 years and was not in a fit mental condition to give valid consent, the marriage was void. 3. The learned Judge, Family Court admitted the petition filed by the respondent on 24.1.2012 and directed for issuance of notice on the appellant. On 7.8.2012, the postal A.D. returned back after service on one Chhabita Sahoo. The respondent filed an affidavit regarding proof of service of summons issued through registered post and accordingly the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela held the service of summons to be sufficient. Since the appellant was found to be absent on repeated calls and no steps were taken on her behalf, she was set ex parte on 7.8.2012. During ex parte hearing, the respondent filed his evidence affidavit and he was also examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the respondent, another witness namely, Ghanashyam Sahu also filed evidence affidavit and he was examined as P.W.2. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2012 came to hold that the respondent in his evidence affidavit has fully corroborated the averments made in the petition and his evidence is corroborated by P.W. 2 and accordingly taking into consideration the unchallenged testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, it was held that as on the date of so-called mock marriage, the respondent was a minor and as such the consent given by the respondent for signing the marriage affidavit and the later on attending the temple marriage cannot be termed as legal and binding on the respondent who was by then a minor and any consent given at that age can not be held to be valid. It was further held that the said marriage can not be deemed or considered to be valid as he was by then minor and therefore, such marriage is liable to be annulled in the eye of law particularly when the appellant had not come forward to challenge the testimony of the respondent and no evidence to the contrary was filed or proved. The learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela further held that the so-called marriage affidavit of the respondent with the appellant dated 14.1.2011 and later on the temple marriage on dated 21.1.2011 can not be held to be valid and is liable to be annulled and accordingly declared the affidavit marriage dated 14.1.2011 and temple marriage dated 21.1.2011 as null and void. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and the order of the learned trial judge contended that the ex parte judgment is against material on record and also against law. It is further contended that the appellant was deliberately and intentionally set ex parte in the case and no notice was served on her and she had not been given a chance to file her written statement and to contest the proceeding. It is further contended that the marriage was a valid marriage which was solemnised on 12.9.2011 and at that time the respondent had already attended more than 21 years of age as required under law. It is further contended that the respondent disclosed before the Notary Public while swearing affidavit that his age was 23 years. It is further contended that the marriage between the parties was never solemnised on 14.1.2011 and 21.1.2011 as alleged by the respondent rather the marriage was solemnized on 12.9.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and was duly consummated at Cuttack where both of them were living as husband and wife. It is further contended that there are other proceedings pending between the parties i.e. Crl. Proceeding No. 432 of 2012 before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack as well as Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2012. It is further contended that the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and order as no cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. 6. Proceeding No. 432 of 2012 before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack as well as Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2012. It is further contended that the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and order as no cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and submitted that there is absolutely no error, infirmity or illegality in passing the ex-parte decree as in spite of receipt of notice from the Court, the appellant did not appear to participate in the proceeding before the Family Court, Rourkela. 7. Adverting to the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela arbitrarily and illegally set her ex parte and did not make any endeavour to serve notice on her and proceeded mechanically which is contrary to the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and rules framed thereunder, we called for the lower Court records and verified the same very minutely. 8. It is pertinent to take note of section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 states that subject to the other provisions of the Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court. From a plain reading of section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in the suits and proceedings, other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a Family Court and a Family Court is deemed a Civil Court with all the powers of such Court. From a plain reading of section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply in the suits and proceedings, other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a Family Court and a Family Court is deemed a Civil Court with all the powers of such Court. It would be pertinent to observe here that provisions encoded in Code of Civil Procedure are based on principle of natural justice and fair play, hence all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings before Family Courts within the meaning of section 10 of the Family Courts Act. Thus, in view of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, so far as issuance and service of summons is concerned, procedure laid down under order V CPC are to be followed. 9. On verification of records of the Family Court, it appears that on 24.01.2012 the petition for divorce filed by the respondent was admitted and notice was directed to be issued to the appellant in both ways fixing 18.02.2012 for service return and for filing of written statement. On 18.02.2012 the Postal S.R. was back without service with postal endorsement "not known" and accordingly the respondent was directed to take fresh step against the appellant. The respondent again filed the requisites or issuance of notice on the appellant on 3.7.2012 and accordingly notice was sent to the appellant fixing the date to 7.8.2012 awaiting service return and for filing written statement. On 7.8.2012 the order-sheet of the learned Judge, Family Court reads as follows:- Order No. 7 dated 7.8.2012 Petitioner is present and files hazira. Postal AD back with due service. At this stage, the petitioner files an affidavit regarding proof of service of summons issued back through Registered Post. The service of summons is held sufficient. Respondent is absent on calls. No step is taken on her behalf. Hence, the respondent is set ex-parte. Put up on 11.09.2012 for ex-parte hearing" Sd/- (Judge, Family Court, Rourkela) We verified the acknowledgement card and it appears that one Chhabita Sahoo has signed the postal acknowledgement. The service of summons is held sufficient. Respondent is absent on calls. No step is taken on her behalf. Hence, the respondent is set ex-parte. Put up on 11.09.2012 for ex-parte hearing" Sd/- (Judge, Family Court, Rourkela) We verified the acknowledgement card and it appears that one Chhabita Sahoo has signed the postal acknowledgement. The affidavit which has been filed by the respondent indicates that summons which was sent by registered post was acknowledged by the opposite party through her younger sister Chhabita Sahoo who is living in joint mess with the appellant and that he is acquainted with the signature of Chhabita Sahoo. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither Chhabita Sahoo has received any such summons nor the appellant also been intimated by Chhabita Sahoo in that respect. On further verification, it appears that though the notices were issued by both ways but there is nothing on record as to what happened to the notice sent to the appellant through Court. A time seeking petition dated 3.8.2012 under the signature of Mamata Sahoo is available on record wherein it is mentioned that the case was posted to that day (i.e.3.8.2012) for appearance and due to illness she was not in a position to attend the Court and accordingly three months time was sought for her appearance in the case and to file written statement. It is pertinent to note that the case was never posted to 3.8.2012. It is not known as to how such a petition came on record. The Court seal is also not available on the time seeking petition dated 3.8.2012. The signature of Mamata Sahoo which is there in that time petition dated 3.8.2012 is completely different from the signature of the appellant which is available on Vakalatnama filed in this Matrimonial Appeal so also her signatures appearing in the affidavit of the Misc. Cases filed in the Matrimonial Appeal. Thus, it is apparent that the signature which is appearing in the time seeking petition dated 3.8.2012 is not that of the appellant. Another two time seeking petitions dated 18.2.2012 are also available on record wherein the signatures of Mamata Sahoo are there and one of such petition which is dated 18.02.2012 appears to have been signed by the Judge-in-Charge on 13.02.2012 with a direction to the Bench Clerk to put up before the Presiding Officer and file in record. Another two time seeking petitions dated 18.2.2012 are also available on record wherein the signatures of Mamata Sahoo are there and one of such petition which is dated 18.02.2012 appears to have been signed by the Judge-in-Charge on 13.02.2012 with a direction to the Bench Clerk to put up before the Presiding Officer and file in record. It is not understood as to how a petition dated 18.02.2012 bears the signature of the Judge-in-Charge dated 13.02.2012. The case was never posted to 13.02.2012. The order-sheet dated 18.02.2012 is completely silent about the filing of any such petition by Mamata Sahoo. The prevaricating order-sheets as well as documents clearly gives an indication that the proceedings before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela was not properly conducted. The Judge, Family Court, Rourkela should have been more careful to see that the order-sheets are properly maintained and the petitions which are available on record filed by either parties are properly reflected in the order-sheet. The availability of petitions dated 18.02.2012 as well as 3.8.2012 on record under the signatures of Mamata Sahoo are tale-telling that some mischief has been committed by somebody and the forged signatures of the appellant have been put on such time seeking petitions. The affidavit regarding proof of service of summons is also not in consonance with Rule 54 of G.R.C.O (Civil) Vol.1 of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa. The acknowledgement card does not bear the date on which Chhabita Sahoo received the notice. Similarly the date stamp of office of delivery on the acknowledgement appears to be dated 7.8.2012. If the summons was served at Cuttack on 7.8.2012 and one Chhabita Sahoo received the same and put her signature on the postal acknowledgement, it is not understood as to how such a postal acknowledgment reached at Rourkela on the very day inasmuch as the Court seal of Judge, Family Court, Rourkela on the postal acknowledgment is also dated 7.8.2012. It appears that there is some hanky-panky in the entire procedural aspect and that has not been properly taken care of by the learned trial Judge. Rule 46 of G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.1 of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa states that service should be personal wherever practicable and the Courts ought not in ex parte cases to act upon anything short of personal service until they are satisfied that personal service could not reasonably be effected. Rule 46 of G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.1 of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa states that service should be personal wherever practicable and the Courts ought not in ex parte cases to act upon anything short of personal service until they are satisfied that personal service could not reasonably be effected. Order V Rule 15 C.P.C. states that if the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons 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 he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, in such a situation service can be effected on any male or female adult member of the family who is residing with the defendant. There is nothing in the acknowledgement card that the appellant was absent from her residence when the notice sent through registered post was sought to be effected on her. There is no noting that there was no likelihood of her being found at the residence within a reasonable time. Since the declaration sought for by the respondent-husband in the proceeding against the appellant-wife was to declare the marriage between the parties as void and to pass a decree of nullity which has far-reaching consequence on the life of the appellant, the trial Judge should have been more careful and should not have dealt the matter casually to set the appellant ex parte. We are of the view that there is no proper service of notice on the appellant in accordance with law and therefore the order dated 7.8.2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court holding the service of summons to be sufficient is not proper and justified and accordingly the consequential order in setting the appellant ex parte is also not proper. We are of the view that the appellant is entitled for an opportunity of hearing before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela and the same is required to be provided to her for filing the written statement and contest the case in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above observation, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2012 is hereby set aside. Civil Proceeding No. 13 of 2012 is remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above observation, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2012 is hereby set aside. Civil Proceeding No. 13 of 2012 is remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In order to cut short the delay in disposal of the case, the parties are directed to appear in person before the Family Court, Rourkela on 29.6.2015 and thereafter the learned Judge, Family Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. In the result, the Matrimonial Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 13 of 2012 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Vinod Prasad, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed