JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Cmp No.2475 of 2020 By way of instant application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, permission has been sought by the applicant/appellant to place on record certified copy of zimni orders passed in the proceedings under S.125 CrPC filed by the respondent, as well as certified copy of process fee given by the respondent for the service of the appellant to demonstrate that the non-applicant/respondent-wife, was fully aware that the petitioner-husband resides in Sonepat, Haryana and not at the address given by her in the memo of petition filed by her for divorce in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Haryana. Aforesaid prayer having been made by the applicant/appellant has been resisted by non- applicant/respondent by filing reply to the application, wherein, otherwise, factum with regard to furnishing of address of Sonepat, Haryana by respondent-wife in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has not been denied. 2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record in the instant application as well as documents intended to be placed on record, this Court is of the view that documents intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence, are not only relevant, but may be very crucial for adjudication of the appeal having been filed by the petitioner-husband. Since, documents intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence are certified copies of zimni orders passed by learned Court below in the proceedings initiated by respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., same otherwise being public documents can be always taken into consideration unless authenticity of the same is seriously disputed by opposite party. 3. As has been observed above, in the case at hand, respondent-wife has nowhere disputed that in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, she had not shown petitionerhusband as a resident of Sonepat, Haryana. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present application is allowed and the relevant documents intended to be placed on record, as annexed with the application, are ordered to be taken on record. Application stands disposed of. 5. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present application is allowed and the relevant documents intended to be placed on record, as annexed with the application, are ordered to be taken on record. Application stands disposed of. 5. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in HMA Petition No.71 of 2017, titled Arti vs. Vijay Kumar, whereby the petition having been filed by the appellant, under Section 13 (I)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, came to be partly allowed on the ground of cruelty, has approached this Court by way of instant appeal, filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 6. Facts, in brief as emerge from the record are that the marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 27.09.2014, according to Hindu rites and customs, at Village Bharnot, Post Office Dugli, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. Parties to lis, lived happily after their marriage for about 1 1/2 years and thereafter, they separated on account of certain differences. Respondent-wife, subsequently, filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, alleging therein that petitionerhusband, kept her nicely for about 1 1/2 years, but thereafter, started harassing her mentally, physically, economically, financially and emotionally. She also alleged that she was maltreated, teased and taunted for bringing less dowry and the petitioner also gave her beatings in the influence of liquor and as such, she be granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. 7. Since, despite service, petitioner-husband failed to appear before learned Court below, he was proceeded ex parte. Learned Court below on the basis of evidence led on record by respondent-wife, allowed the divorce petition having been filed by her, partly and ordered to dissolve the marriage inter se petitioner-husband and respondent-wife by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-husband, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.6.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. 8. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-husband, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.6.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. 8. Precisely, the case of the petitioner-husband is that learned Court below wrongly proceeded him ex parte, because report given on summons by process-servers, nowhere, suggests that petitioner was duly served, rather, in two reports, furnished by the Process Serving Agency, it was categorically informed that petitioner-husband does not reside on the given address and at present he resides in Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. 9. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner-husband, while making this Court to peruse the record, argued that despite there being specific report of the Process Serving Agency that petitioner-husband resides in Sonepat, Haryana, learned Court below permitted respondent- wife, to serve the petitioner by way of publication in a newspaper, which was only circulated in District Kangra, H.P. and as such, no service, if any, can be said to have been effected upon petitioner-husband by way of publication. Mr. Kanwar, further contended that respondent-wife besides filing the petition for divorce, also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., wherein, she had given address of Sonepat, Haryana, while taking steps for the service of petitioner-husband and as such, it cannot be said that she was not aware of actual address of petitioner-husband. Lastly, Mr. Kanwar, contended that since respondent-wife before filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and divorce petition at hand, had resided with petitioner-husband for a considerable time at Sonepat, Haryana, it cannot be accepted that she was not aware of the actual address of petitioner-husband, but she purposely, with a view to ensure absence of petitioner-husband from the trial instituted at her behest, not furnished correct address and gave address of the village in District Hamirpur, where none of the family member of petitioner-husband resides. 10. While supporting the impugned judgment and decree of divorce passed by learned Court below, Mr. Devender Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent-wife, contended that once petitioner was duly served by way of publication, it cannot be said that proper service of notice was not effected upon him. 11. 10. While supporting the impugned judgment and decree of divorce passed by learned Court below, Mr. Devender Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent-wife, contended that once petitioner was duly served by way of publication, it cannot be said that proper service of notice was not effected upon him. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to the divorce petition filed by respondent-wife, notice came to be issued to petitioner-husband on the address given in the divorce petition, which was admittedly of District Hamirpur, H.P. and not of Sonepat, Haryana. The report of Process Serving Agency, pursuant to the notice issued by learned Court below for 21.09.2017, clearly reveals that none was found on the given address and witnesses on the spot informed the process server that petitioner-husband, son of Shri Duni Chand, resides in Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. Pursuant to aforesaid report submitted by the process server, dated 26.8.2017, matter again came to be posted before learned Court below, which again issued notice on the address given on the memo of the appeal for 22.01.2018, wherein, again process server reported that petitioner-husband, Vijay Kumar does not reside on the given address and at present, as per information given to him, he resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. 12. After having seen aforesaid reports given by process server dated 26.8.2017 and 22.11.2017, respondent-wife filed an application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC, praying therein for service of the petitioner by way of publication. Learned Court below permitted the respondent-wife to serve the petitioner-husband by way of publication in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala'. Notice published in aforesaid newspaper clearly reveals that the Court Notice was published in daily newspaper, Dharamshala Edition on 9.3.2018, meaning thereby intimation with regard to lodging of the case by respondent-wife and posting thereof on 23.3.2018, was only circulated in District Kangra, whereas, process servers in their two reports had categorically reported that petitionerhusband resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. Since in both the reports, process servers categorically reported that as per information given to him, petitioner-husband resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi, learned Court below while permitting respondent-wife to serve the petitioner-husband by way of publication ought to have ordered for the publication of notice in newspaper having wide circulation in Sonepat /Delhi. Since in both the reports, process servers categorically reported that as per information given to him, petitioner-husband resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi, learned Court below while permitting respondent-wife to serve the petitioner-husband by way of publication ought to have ordered for the publication of notice in newspaper having wide circulation in Sonepat /Delhi. Once, it had come to the notice of the Court by way of report filed by the process servers that petitioner-husband does not reside at the address given in the memo of the appeal and he resides at Sonepat/Delhi, it ought not have permitted respondent-wife to serve petitioner by way of publication in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala', Dharamshala Edition. Mere fact that intimation with regard to filing of the divorce petition and posting of the matter on 23.3.2018, was published in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala', Dharamshala Edition, does not mean that petitioner had became aware of posting of the matter in the Court on 23.3.2018, especially, when it stands proved by the report of the process server that at present petitioner-husband resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. 13. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that prior to filing of the petition at hand, respondent-wife had instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, praying therein for maintenance, wherein, she herself had given address of Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi, meaning thereby, she was fully aware of address of petitioner-husband, but despite that she purposely, to ensure absence of petitioner-husband from the case instituted by her and with a view to obtain ex parte decree, furnished address of District Hamirpur, where none of the family member of the petitioner-husband resides, as has been reported by process servers in two reports. 14. Provisions of Order V, Rule 20 CPC can only be invoked when Court is satisfied that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that, for any other sufficient reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, at the first instance court shall order that a copy of the summons be affixed in some conspicuous place in the Court house, and also in some conspicuous place 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. Order V rule 20 (1)A empowers a Court to serve the person by way of advertisement in the newspaper but such newspaper shall be a daily newspaper having circulations in the locality, in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain. 15. In the case at hand, it had come categorically in the report of process server on two occasion that petitioner's husband does not reside at given address rather, resides at Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi, meaning thereby Court while permitting respondent-wife to serve the petitioner-husband by way of publication ought to have ordered the publication of notice in daily newspapers having circulation in the locality where defendant is actually residing or have lastly and voluntarily resided i.e. Sonepat, Haryana. Since, it stood clarified from the report of process server that the petitioner-husband resides in Snoepat/Delhi, Haryana, he could not be served by way of publication in newspaper having circulation in Kangra District, whereas, publication if any ought to have been made in the newspaper having circulation in Sonepat, Haryana/Delhi. 16. Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court finds it difficult to conclude that petitioner-husband was served in divorce petition, having been filed by respondent-wife, rather careful perusal of the material available on record, especially, report of the process servers and factum with regard to filing of address of Sonepat in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.PC filed by the respondent-wife, reveals that petitioner was not residing at the address given in the memo of appeal and respondent-wife despite having known address of Sonepat, Haryana, intentionally and willfully failed to serve petitioner-husband on the address of Haryana and as such, ex parte decree of divorce granted by learned Court below on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner-husband cannot be allowed to sustain. 17. In view of the above, the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in HMA Petition No.71 of 2017, titled Arti vs. Vijay Kumar, is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to learned Court below to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to petitioner-husband. Learned counsel representing both the parties undertake to cause presence of the parties to lis before the learned Court below on 12.08.2021, enabling it to proceed with the divorce petition having been filed by the respondent-wife afresh. 18. Since, both the parties have undertaken to appear before learned Court below on the given date, there is no necessity to issue notice by the Court below for the given date. Since, the case is hanging in fire for almost 4 years, this Court hopes and trusts that the Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months. Record of learned Court below be sent back forthwith. Needless to say, learned Court below shall afford due opportunity to the appellant to file reply to the petition. 19. The instant appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.