JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Ms. A Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By an order passed on 15.12.2016 in Divorce Case No. 2/2016 under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kohima had allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and had dissolved the marriage between the parties. In the said proceedings, the appellant did not participate and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court had recorded that despite service of notice through the father of the appellant and also later on by way of substituted service by means of paper publication, the appellant had not chosen to take part in the said proceedings. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 3.2.2014 at Nagaon as per Hindu rites and rituals and their marriage was subsequently registered on 17.2.2014 before the Family Court, Dimapur. A girl child was born to the parties on 31.10.2014 and the child is presently in the custody of the appellant. 4. The present appeal was accompanied by an application for condo nation of delay of 221 days. By order dated 27.11.2018, the delay was condoned. 5. Reiterating the stand taken in the said application, Ms. Chakraborty has submitted that on receipt of notice dated 3.8.2016, wherein the date was fixed on 9.8.2016 for the purpose of ‘settlement of issue’, the appellant had contacted an advocate at Nagaon who had given an opinion to the appellant that the case was fixed before an appointed conciliator and that he would take necessary steps in that regard. Subsequently, the appellant did not receive any notice and no further information was also provided by the advocate to whom she had approached. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant could not take part in the proceedings before the Trial Court. Ms. Chakraborty has also submitted that the appellant is suffering from extreme financial hardship and though an order for grant of maintenance was passed earlier, the same was not paid. It is submitted by her that unless an opportunity is granted to the appellant to contest the proceedings, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 6. Mr. Ms. Chakraborty has also submitted that the appellant is suffering from extreme financial hardship and though an order for grant of maintenance was passed earlier, the same was not paid. It is submitted by her that unless an opportunity is granted to the appellant to contest the proceedings, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 6. Mr. Biswas, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and has contended that the fact that the appellant had received the notice is not under any doubt and the said fact has also been taken note of by the Court below. Inspite of that, another notice was published in the newspaper giving sufficient time for appearance of the appellant but even then the appellant did not contest the proceedings and, therefore, there was no option on the part of the Trial Court but to proceed with the proceedings in which the respondent herein had examined three witnesses who supported the case presented by the respondent. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that in the present facts and circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the record of the Trial Court. At the first instance, what is to be taken note of is that the petition filed by the respondent was registered on 11.7.2016 and the learned Trial Court had noted in the order dated 11.7.2016 that the respondent had not given the correct address of the present appellant and, therefore, the respondent was to take steps for service of notice on the appellant. The case was fixed on 9.8.2016. The order dated 9.8.2016 goes to show that the counsel for the respondent had submitted that notice was served upon the father of the present appellant, but acknowledgement thereof could not be obtained. The learned counsel had also made a prayer for issuance of substituted summons to avoid problems of issuing summons and accepting such submission, substituted summons by way of paper publication was permitted by the Trial Court. 8. We have perused the paper publication. A perusal of the same indicates that in the said summons also the same was described as ‘Summon for Settlement of Issue’. 8. We have perused the paper publication. A perusal of the same indicates that in the said summons also the same was described as ‘Summon for Settlement of Issue’. It was indicated therein that the appellant was called upon to answer to the issues contained in the petition. The earlier notice issued which was purportedly received by the father of the appellant also goes to show that the same was christened as a notice and summons for settlement of issue. 9. In a proceeding instituted on a petition for divorce, in the first instance, summons has to be issued for the purpose of appearance and for filing of written statement. The records demonstrate in unequivocal terms that no such summons was issued for appearance of the appellant for the purpose of filing written statement. It is in the aforesaid context, the submission of Ms. Chakraborty that the advocate to whom the appellant had approached had suggested that the summons was issued for an amicable settlement, cannot be brushed aside. It was under such an impression that the appellant was awaiting further instructions in the matter and as the advocate had indicated that he would take appropriate steps, the appellant did not appear before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded with the matter without her participation and it is in these circumstances, the impugned judgment came to be passed. 10. In a divorce proceeding, due opportunity has to be granted for the purpose of contesting the proceedings. In our considered opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate that there were procedural irregularities culminating in passing of the impugned judgment coupled with the fact that there was denial of opportunity in effective terms to enable the appellant to contest the proceedings. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside and quash the impugned judgment to enable the appellant to file written statement and to contest the proceedings. 11. Parties to the proceedings will appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kohima on 08.03.2019. On appearance of the parties, the learned Trial Court will regulate and proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law. 12. Registry will send back the record to the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kohima so as to reach the said Court before the date fixed.