JUDGMENT : The wife is in appeal challenging the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 by which, her marriage conducted on 07.03.2014 with the respondent has been dissolved. 2. On 30.11.2015, the respondent-husband filed a petition which was numbered as M.C. No. 5221/2015 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity). In the said petition, the address of the appellant/wife was stated as follows: “Smt.Deepa M.P., W/o.Shalivahana Tejaswi K.L., Aged about 25 years, R/at No.69, 18th Cross, Jayanagar, 5th Block, Bengaluru – 560 041.” 3. The Family Court registered the petition and issued notice to the appellant/wife both through Court and by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). The notice sent was not served on the appellant/wife for want of correct address. 4. A request was made for grant of time to furnish correct address and accordingly, the matter was adjourned on two occasions. 5. On 16.07.2016, the Family Court once again issued notice to the appellant/wife through Court and by RPAD and also by courier. However, process fee was not paid and hence, notice was not sent. The matter was finally adjourned for taking steps to 03.11.2016. 6. On 03.11.2016, a submission was made by the respondent/husband through his counsel stating that the appellant/wife had left the address and hence, time may be granted for furnishing the correct address. Accordingly, matter was finally adjourned to 01.12.2016. 7. On 01.12.2016, the process fee and RPAD charges were paid and hence, the Court directed issuance of notice to the appellant/wife through Court and by RPAD returnable by 02.02.2017. 8. The office note in the order sheet of 02.02.2017 reads as follows: “Notice through Court not Served IMAGE RPAD Not served as “Addressee Refused.” 9. As could be seen from the above note in the order sheet, though the court notice was not served on the ground that the residential address could not be traced, the notice sent by RPAD was stated as to have been refused. 10. The Family Court notwithstanding this anomaly, nevertheless, proceeded to accept the endorsement of the postal authorities that ‘the addressee had refused’ and held service of notice on the appellant-wife was sufficient. 11. 10. The Family Court notwithstanding this anomaly, nevertheless, proceeded to accept the endorsement of the postal authorities that ‘the addressee had refused’ and held service of notice on the appellant-wife was sufficient. 11. It is obvious that the notice sent by RPAD was also to the very same address to which the process server of the Court had apparently visited to serve the notice and had stated that he was unable to trace the address. 12. In other words, in respect of the address which the process server could not trace, the postal authorities stated that the addressee (appellant herein) had refused service. 13. As stated earlier, the Family Court, thereafter, despite the anomaly, proceeded to hold the notice to the appellant herein as sufficient and proceeded to place her ex parte. 14. The Family Court, thereafter, went on to grant a decree dissolving the marriage mainly on the ground that there was no contest. 15. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant/wife that both the husband and wife were residing together in the same house i.e., the residential address which had been indicated in the cause title as against the respondent-husband. He contended that the address shown as against the appellant/wife was a fictitious address and the husband had deliberately given a wrong address in order to secure an ex parte decree. 16. He submitted that the fact that the notices sent through Court and RPAD at the inception were returned with an endorsement ‘address was insufficient’ was itself proof of fact that a wrong and fictitious address had been given. 17. Learned counsel also stated that this was a clear case of fraud being played by the respondent/husband. In order to substantiate his assertions, he brought to our notice the fact that that the petition for divorce which was initiated on 30.11.2015 and was pending till 14.09.2017 and during this period the marriage was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 30.03.2017. He submitted that the fact that the marriage was registered during the pendency of the proceedings would itself clearly prove that the appellant and respondent were cohabitating together. 18. He submitted that the fact that the marriage was registered during the pendency of the proceedings would itself clearly prove that the appellant and respondent were cohabitating together. 18. He also submitted that the respondent had suppressed the fact that a son had been born to the appellant and the respondent after the filing of the petition on 19.7.2016 and a passport for the son was also applied for and obtained during the pendency of the divorce proceedings and birthday celebration of their son was also conducted. He submitted that the photographs produced also indicated that they were cohabitating together and it was thus clear that the entire proceedings initiated for divorce was a farce and were with a conscious design to obtain an ex parte decree. 19. Notice of this appeal was ordered to the respondent/husband on 26.11.2019. The notice sent to the respondent/husband was returned with an endorsement “insufficient address”. The subsequent notice sent on 22.01.2020 to the respondent/husband was returned with postal shara “door locked”. This Court had also permitted the appellant to take out hand summons on the respondent. A memo was filed by the appellant that the respondent had refused the hand summons. Taking note of the said endorsements, a paper publication was ordered. Accordingly, paper publication was taken in ‘Samyukta Karnataka’ and despite publication, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/husband. This Court accordingly held that the service of notice on the respondent was sufficient. However, this Court, despite holding service of notice as sufficient also permitted the appellant to serve a copy of the memorandum of appeal on the counsel who had represented the respondent/husband before the Family Court. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant by way of a memo stated that he had sent the copies of the appeal memorandum through Whatsapp and also through email to the counsel who had represented the respondent/husband in the Family Court. He also produced the copy of the screenshot of the Whatsapp message and also the copy of email apart from the postal cover which had been returned unserved. 21. In fact, in the memo, the appellant’s counsel had stated that the counsel who represented the respondent before the Family Court had refused to receive the notice of the appeal. He also produced the copy of the screenshot of the Whatsapp message and also the copy of email apart from the postal cover which had been returned unserved. 21. In fact, in the memo, the appellant’s counsel had stated that the counsel who represented the respondent before the Family Court had refused to receive the notice of the appeal. It is thus clear that every possible attempt was made to ensure service of notice of this appeal on the respondent/husband, but the respondent/husband has successfully evaded the service of notice. 22. Left with no other option, we have proceeded to examine this appeal on merits. 23. As stated above, the respondent/husband before the Family Court furnished the address of his wife which indicated that she was residing at “No.69, 18th Cross, Jayanagar 5th Block, Bengaluru – 560 041”. Notices sent to this address were returned with an endorsement that there was no such person. Registry of the Family Court also noticed that the address provided was insufficient. 24. Thereafter, correct address was stated to have been given and the notices sent through the Court were returned unserved with an endorsement that the house number provided could not be traced. The notices which were obviously sent to the same address by RPAD were however returned with an endorsement that the addressee refused. This indicates that the address provided by the respondent/husband was obviously not reliable. If the process server of the Court could not trace the house and yet at the same time the postal authorities were able to trace the very same house and secure an endorsement that the addressee had refused, this paradoxical situation obviously creates a serious doubt as to the actual service of notice on the appellant. 25. The Family Court disregarding this contradiction regarding service of notice, straightaway proceeded to hold the service of notice on the appellant/wife as sufficient. In our view, this approach of the Family Court cannot be accepted. The Family Court was duty bound to examine as to why the notices sent through Court were returned with an endorsement that the house number could not be traced, while at the same time, the notice sent through RPAD was returned with postal shara “addressee refused”. In our view, the Family Court, by ignoring this contradiction, has committed a serious irregularity and this has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. 26. In our view, the Family Court, by ignoring this contradiction, has committed a serious irregularity and this has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. 26. The Family Court has dissolved the marriage essentially because the proceedings were not contested. The conduct of the respondent/husband in this regard, firstly, in not responding to the notice of this Court and in not appearing before this Court lends credence to the suspicion that the entire proceedings before the Family Court was stage managed to secure an ex parte decree. 27. The following materials produced by the learned counsel for the appellant/wife: “a. in respect of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent being registered during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, b. that a son was born during the pendency of the petition and a passport for the son had also been applied for and obtained during the pendency of the divorce proceedings and c. the birthday of their son being celebrated during the pendency of the divorce proceedings” give room for serious doubt as to the genuineness and validity of the entire proceedings before the Family Court. 28. Another factor to be noticed in this appeal is that during the pendency of this appeal, an application was filed for impleading by one Smt. M. Hema, who claimed that she had married the respondent herein on 29.05.2019 in a Temple and had thereafter also had a wedding reception on 20.10.2019. She has stated that her marriage with the respondent herein was also registered on 05.05.2018 and the respondent had in fact duped her by securing the loan of Rupees Four Crores Seventy Six Lakhs by mortgaging her properties. Though the said application was dismissed on the ground that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party to this proceeding, the averments made in the application, prima facie, give room to a suspicion that the conduct of the respondent-husband is unethical and improper. 29. The assertions made by Smt. M.Hema gives us an impression that the entire proceedings before the Family Court had been initiated by the respondent/husband with a design and motive of securing an ex parte decree so as to facilitate the second marriage of the respondent. 30. In view of the above, we are of the view that the conduct of the respondent/husband is not above board and is with ulterior and oblique motives. 31. 30. In view of the above, we are of the view that the conduct of the respondent/husband is not above board and is with ulterior and oblique motives. 31. Be that as it may. Since we have held that the proceedings conducted in the absence of the appellant/wife is illegal as the notices of the petition for divorce were not served on her, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 32. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 passed in M.C.No.5221/2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for reconsideration of the petition filed by the respondent/husband. 33. Since the appellant is represented through his counsel, the appellant to appear before the concerned Family Court on 22.03.2021 without expecting any separate notice from the said Court. 34. The statement of objection to M.C.No.5221/2015 shall be filed by the appellant herein on 22.03.2021 or any other date to be stipulated by the Family Court. 35. Since the respondent/husband is not represented in the appeal, the Family Court to issue notice to the respondent herein and to dispose of M.C.No.5221/2015 expeditiously, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the appellant herein. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Parties shall bear their respective cost.