JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 29.1.2015 rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court has earlier passed an ex-parte order on 15.5.2014 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month to the respondent-daughter-in-law w.e.f. 9.4.2013. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in nutshell are to the effect that respondent-Mamta had married the son of appellant Pramod in the year 2006. He passed away in 2008. Having not been paid the maintenance, she filed an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. At the given address notice was sent to the appellant initially by ordinary post and thereafter by registered post. As per the endorsement of the postman on the ysus ls badkj fd;k^^ the service was presumed to have been effected upon the appellant by the trial Court. Thereafter the trial Court proceeded to decide the application on merits and ordered maintenance as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court that even assuming that the appellant has refused to take notice, the said presumption is rebuttable under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Since in his evidence on affidavit sworn during the course of the proceeding he has denied the service of the notice and the endorsement of the postman, the same ought to have been accepted by the trial Court, counsel relies upon two orders in the case of Lalita (Smt.) v. Motilal, 2000 (II) MPWN 30 and Ramesh Chand v. M/s. Bhopal Bottling Co. Govindpura, Bhopal, 1976 MPWN 107 to bolster his submission. 4. Per contra, Shri Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent-daughter-in-law contends that in his cross-examination, particularly in para 7, 9, 10 and 11 the appellant has clearly admitted that envelope bore the correct address where he is residing with his wife and other family members. He has never made any complaint against the postman if he alleged that endorsement on the envelope is wrong. He has never made any complaint against the postman if he alleged that endorsement on the envelope is wrong. He also admitted that civil litigation is going on between the appellant and the daughter-in-law related to partition and apportionment of share in joint family property of which the appellant is the Karta, even the wife of the appellant has initiated proceedings against the respondent-daughter-in-law seeking declaration against her in joint family property, wherein she has deposed to have had the knowledge of the instant proceeding instituted by the respondent-daughter-in-law against the appellant. That apart, the appellant has also admitted that so far he has not given share to the respondent-daughter-in-law in para 11. Therefore, regard being had to facts related to the factum of issuance of notice, report of the process server and the conduct of the appellant, as well deducible from the aforesaid paragraphs of his deposition, the trial Court has not committed any illegality while it accepted the fact of knowledge of the notice to the appellant, therefore, there is no illegality caused while the Court below rejected the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that judgments reported in M.P. Weekly notes do not bear the complete facts, and therefore, the dictum thereunder though is beyond cavil of doubt, but has no bearing in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Upon hearing counsel for the parties, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions advanced by Shri Dhakad while supporting the impugned order. This Court has also carefully perused the order, the evidence led before the trial Court and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial Court has applied correct principles of law while passing the impugned order upon due appreciation of the evidence placed on record. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference either on facts or in law. The first appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.