JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Even after repeated calls, no representation is made on behalf of the respondent. The case was passed over, but eventually the efforts of hearing both the parties were futile, as the counsel absented to appear on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard 3. On the earlier occasion, both the appellant and respondent were directed to appear in person. They appeared and thereafter they were directed to place on record the source of income and assets which are held by them at present. The appellant/wife Smt. Sandhya Pawar has filed the documents; however, neither the affidavit nor any documents have been filed on behalf of the respondent. 4. The present appeal is against the judgment & decree dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, wherein an exparte judgment & decree was passed in favour of the husband. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was working as Guest Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School Mohandi, Block Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, as such, the notice which was issued to her in respect of the divorce petition was not served in person to her. Therefore, the learned Family Court fell in error to proceed exparte against the appellant/wife. He would submit that as per the provisions of Order 5 Rule 12 & 15 of C.P.C. the notice was required to be served in person and in absence thereof no valid notice can be deemed to have been served. In a result, the exparte judgment & decree is required to be set aside by giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the Court below. 7. Perusal of the records of the Court below would show that the exparte proceeding was drawn on 06.03.2019 on a report of the process server which purports that when the notice was issued to be served to the respondent on an address which is shown of Raipur, on 22.02.2019 an enquiry was made. On an enquiry, the defendant/wife was not found and her mother who is aged about 60 years was found available. She made an endorsement that her daughter/ appellant do not stay there and stays outside. Consequently, the mother refused to take the notice. On an enquiry, the defendant/wife was not found and her mother who is aged about 60 years was found available. She made an endorsement that her daughter/ appellant do not stay there and stays outside. Consequently, the mother refused to take the notice. On such development, the process server returned the process with an endorsement that in absence of the wife since the mother who was living in joint with the daughter has refused the notice. The Family Court by its order dated 06.03.2019 observed that since the mother who was living in joint with the daughter had refused to accept the notice, therefore, it would be a deemed service of notice. 8. Order 5 Rule 15 purports when in a suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept the service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. The plain reading of the Rule 15 of Order 5 of C.P.C. shows that in order to hold the proper service under Order 5 Rule 15, the condition must be satisfied that the absence must be from the residence and not a place of business and further there is no likelihood of his being found within a reasonable time. The word “reasonable time” denotes that if the person is absent from his/her residence, then all possible enquiries are required to be made to find out as to when he is likely to return at his/her residence. 9. The service report of the process server only contemplates that when the notice was issued, the mother of the wife was found and she made an endorsement that her daughter i.e. the wife resides outside. The said facts prima facie are lamented by a document which is filed alongwith this appeal to show that on 22.02.2019 she was discharging the job at Government Higher Secondary School, Mohandi and a copy of the certificate issued by the Principal of the School has been attached with this appeal. The said facts prima facie are lamented by a document which is filed alongwith this appeal to show that on 22.02.2019 she was discharging the job at Government Higher Secondary School, Mohandi and a copy of the certificate issued by the Principal of the School has been attached with this appeal. The endorsement of the process server do not contemplate that Smt. Sandhya Pawar was residing at the given address and an enquiry was made as to when she would return. Therefore, the primary requirement as required under Order 5 Rule 15 of C.P.C. were not satisfied. In the likewise cases before the Delhi High Court reported in AIR 2001 DELHI 272 (R.K.Sharma v. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & Co.) at para 24, the Court made the following observation, which are quoted herein below : “24. Rule 15 of Order 5 of the Code empowers the process server to serve the summons on any adult member of the family provided at the time of service the defendant is absent from his residence, when service of summons is sought to be effected and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept the service. This is not the position in the instant cases, since process server did not even bother to make repeated effort to affect personal service on the defendants. He even did not bother to record on the summons that there was no agent available. He also did not bother to state that persons receiving summons were adult male members of the family of the defendants.” 10. Applying the principles, which has been laid down under Order 5 Rule 15 of C.P.C. we are of the view that the learned Family Court while proceeding exparte on 06.09.2019 failed to abide by the requirement under Order 5 Rule 15 and further in the judgment & decree dated 06.04.2019 though the decree reflects that the plaintiff is represented in self and the defendant is also represented in self, but it contradicts the order sheet of the Family Court itself that the wife/ appellant was not present when the decree was drawn. In a result, the judgment & decree dated 06.04.2019 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. The parties may appear before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, on 13.09.2022. 11. In a result, the judgment & decree dated 06.04.2019 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. The parties may appear before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, on 13.09.2022. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to send back the original record of Civil Suit No. 04A of 2019 forthwith to the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon