JUDGMENT/ORDER : Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the record as well as lower court records. 2. The opposite party/appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against petitioner/respondent for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani by which and whereunder he passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of opposite party/appellant and petitioner/respondent on the ground of desertion. 3. The petitioner/respondent filed M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015 against opposite party/appellant seeking decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with opposite party/appellant dated 18.04.2012 on the grounds of adultery as well as desertion. 4. The aforesaid suit was admitted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani on 29.07.2015 and, after that summons was issued to opposite party/appellant. The service report was received, but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani find that service report was not sufficient and, accordingly, he directed the petitioner/respondent to take fresh step for service upon opposite party/appellant. However, on 24.05.2016, the petitioner/respondent filed a petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court seeking permission for publication of notice in daily Hindi Newspaper which was allowed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Madhubani vide order dated 03.08.2016. Accordingly, a notice was published in daily Hindi Newspaper which was produced before the court below on 24.05.2016, but in spite of publication of notice in daily Hindi Newspaper, the opposite party/appellant did not appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and, accordingly, learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded ex-parte against opposite party/appellant. Thereafter, the evidence of petitioner/respondent was recorded and, lastly, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 21.12.2016 which is under challenge before this court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party/appellant submits that opposite party/appellant did not get any notice of pendency of M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015, as a result whereof, she could not appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani. He further submits that mere publication of notice in daily Hindi Newspaper is not a conclusive proof to come on the conclusion that the notice was validly served upon the opposite party/appellant. 6. He further submits that mere publication of notice in daily Hindi Newspaper is not a conclusive proof to come on the conclusion that the notice was validly served upon the opposite party/appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent refuted the above-stated submissions arguing that not only summons was sent to opposite party/appellant, but notice was also published in daily Hindi Newspaper and the notice upon opposite party/appellant was served in the form of substituted service and there is presumption of service of notice upon opposite party/appellant. 7. Admittedly, the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2016 was passed behind the back of opposite party/appellant. Furthermore, it is obvious from perusal of lower court records that summons was issued to opposite party/appellant, but service report was found not sufficient by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and, therefore, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner/respondent to take fresh step for issuance of notice to opposite party/appellant. It is an admitted position that no summons was issued to opposite party/appellant and on the prayer of petitioner/respondent the learned Principal Judge, Family Court permitted the petitioner/respondent to get the notice published in daily Hindi Newspaper which was acted upon by the petitioner/respondent. It is also an admitted position that personal service of notice was not affected upon opposite party/appellant and the substituted service was deemed to be proper service upon opposite party/appellant. 8. Here, we would like to refer the Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with substituted service and runs as follows:- "20.Substituted service- (1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. [1A) Where the Court acting under subrule(1)orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.] (2) Effect of substituted service - Service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if it has been made on the defendant personally. (3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed - where service is substituted by order of the Court, the Court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the case may require. 9. The bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is obvious that the court can adopt the procedure of substituted service, if court is satisfied that the defendant is getting out of the way for the purpose of abiding service or that for any other reason, the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that the court was satisfied that the summons could not have been served upon opposite party/appellant in ordinary way and without giving any finding regarding the above-stated satisfaction, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court permitted the petitioner/respondent to take step for publication of notice in daily Hindi Newspaper. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that the publication of notice in Gazette or daily Hindi Newspaper is not a conclusive proof of the service of notice. Here, the opposite party/appellant has made submission that no summons was served upon her and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, we are of the view that there was no proper service of summons upon the opposite party/appellant. 10. In the aforesaid circumstance, we have no option except to set aside the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015 and, accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2016 is hereby set aside and M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015 is remitted to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani with direction to concerned court to proceed with the case afresh after giving opportunity to opposite party/appellant to file her written statement and further to give the parties to adduce their respective evidence and pass afresh judgment. However, it is made clear that after filing of the written statement by opposite party/appellant, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Madhubani shall explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties and if reconciliation fails then in that circumstance, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Madhubani shall decide the case on merit after taking the evidence of the parties. Furthermore, both parties are directed to appear before Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in connection with M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015 on 16.01.2020 and learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani is directed to expedite M.M. Case No. 143 of 2015 and shall take all efforts to dispose of the aforesaid case within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 11. In the aforesaid manner, this appeal stands disposed of.