ORDER : 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2022 and the decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in Original Case No.14 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga (in short, learned Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant-wife, namely, Parden Firda Kujur and the respondent-husband, namely, Manoranjan Anand @ Manoranjan Bakhla has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as: (i) The plaintiff's (respondent herein) case in brief is that the plaintiff and defendant wife (appellant herein) are by caste Oraon Schedule Tribe and by religion Christian and they are governed by Christian religion. The marriage of plaintiff was solemnized with defendant on 04.04.2013 as per Christian rites and custom in N.W.G.E.L Church, Nini. After marriage defendant came to her matrimonial house and both of them started their conjugal life. (ii) On the first day of her marriage, the defendant wife disclosed that her marriage was solemnized under pressure of her parents. She wants to marry with another boy to whom she loves. After few days of marriage, the real face of defendant came out. (iii) She was very arrogant and verbally abusive. Her behaviour was very rough and rude towards the petitioner and his parents. During living in her matrimonial house, the defendant noticed that the standard of living of plaintiff is lower than that of her father. She is more educated in comparison to the plaintiff. (iv) There is great difference in between the family of the plaintiff and defendant. She threatened the plaintiff to commit suicide. She has further threatened the plaintiff and his family members to implicate in false case of dowry and torture. The conduct of defendant inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture amounts to cruelty upon the plaintiff. (v) It is alleged that the defendant is lady of bad character. She always remained busy in talking with her lover on mobile. She lived about 15 days in her matrimonial house and thereafter she fled away to Nainital with her Jija, namely, Anil Toppo without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. (v) It is alleged that the defendant is lady of bad character. She always remained busy in talking with her lover on mobile. She lived about 15 days in her matrimonial house and thereafter she fled away to Nainital with her Jija, namely, Anil Toppo without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. After that plaintiff several times contacted the defendant on mobile, but she refused to live with plaintiff. Later on, she left receiving the mobile call sent by the plaintiff. (vi) In the month of December 2014, all of sudden the defendant wife came in her matrimonial house and resided few days. During that period, she resided separately in another room and denied to cohabit with plaintiff. After few days, she again left her matrimonial house without permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff several times contacted the defendant and her family members, but she refused to come in her matrimonial house. In the month of November 2015, again defendant came in her matrimonial house and she lived there about one week. After that she went away to her maika. (vii) After November 2015, the defendant did not come to her matrimonial house. The plaintiff got knowledge that she is residing with her lover. (viii) On 08.01.2022, a meeting was held in N.W.G.E.L. Church, Dari, but defendant refused in the said meeting to live with the plaintiff. There is no any cohabitation since after 15 days of marriage. The defendant has treated the plaintiff with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in mind of the plaintiff that it would be harmful or injurious for the plaintiff’s life. (ix) The cause of action for the suit arose on 04.04.2013 on the date of marriage and several other days, when plaintiff husband was subjected to cruelty or torture and in November 2015 when defendant left her matrimonial house and lived in her maika. She has deserted the plaintiff since more than 6 years without any valid reason. Lastly on 08.01.2022, defendant refused to come and live with plaintiff. (x) Thereafter the plaintiff/husband had preferred a suit for decree of divorce under section 10 (ix) (x) of Divorce Act 1869 which has been instituted as Original Case No. 14 of 2022. She has deserted the plaintiff since more than 6 years without any valid reason. Lastly on 08.01.2022, defendant refused to come and live with plaintiff. (x) Thereafter the plaintiff/husband had preferred a suit for decree of divorce under section 10 (ix) (x) of Divorce Act 1869 which has been instituted as Original Case No. 14 of 2022. (xi) Accordingly, notice was issued but respondent wife had not appeared thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the said suit ex parte by jotting down in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that as the case proceeded ex-parte against the defendant though notice was duly served against her, no case on her behalf could be brought on the record which made the assertion of the plaintiff through his evidence oral and documentary and remained unrebutted. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree by which granting divorce has been granted, the present appeal has been preferred by the respondent wife (appellant herein). Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 4. The ground has been taken on behalf of the appellant-wife that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed ex-parte. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has substantiated the said argument by referring to the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned trial Court wherein the learned Court on the presumption of deemed service of notice has proceeded ex-parte and thereafter concluded the proceeding finally for dissolution of marriage. 5. It has been contended that even the learned trial Court has not taken care of to go for the substituted service or other procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure which is required to be followed in view of the section 14 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984. 6. It has, therefore, been contended that the impugned judgment and decree since have been passed ex-parte on the fiction of deemed service of notice, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree needs to be interfered with. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff: 7. 6. It has, therefore, been contended that the impugned judgment and decree since have been passed ex-parte on the fiction of deemed service of notice, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree needs to be interfered with. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff: 7. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband who has appeared by virtue of the notice issued vide order dated 30.11.2023 submitted that the judgment and decree impugned passed by the learned Family Judge, Lohardaga cannot be said to be ex- parte, since, the notice has been deemed to be served as would be evident from the order dated 08.08.2022 of the learned Family Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs not fit to be quashed Analysis: 9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, gone through the Trial Court Records, as also the impugned judgment and decree, the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 10. The sole ground as has been taken by the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree have been passed ex-parte and, as such, we have not gone through the issue on merit, rather we have concentrated ourselves on the issue of the fact that as to whether the impugned judgment and decree can be said to be ex-parte or not. 11. This Court in order to asses the aforesaid fact has gone through the original record which has been called for by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 which contains the order issuing notice by the concerned Court, i.e., the learned Family Court, Lohardaga. 12. It is evident from the order dated 12.04.2022 that the case was admitted for hearing and plaintiff was directed to file requisites. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.04.2022 order was passed to issue the notices. Accordingly. notice has been issued vide dated 26.04.2022 which would be evident from side portion of the order sheet. 13. It is evident from the order dated 08.08.2022 that the learned Family Judge has come to a finding with respect to the service of notice and on perusal of the case record has come to the aforesaid findings of service of notice deemed to be served on expiry of a period of one month from 21.06.2022. 14. 13. It is evident from the order dated 08.08.2022 that the learned Family Judge has come to a finding with respect to the service of notice and on perusal of the case record has come to the aforesaid findings of service of notice deemed to be served on expiry of a period of one month from 21.06.2022. 14. It further appears from the aforesaid order that the case has been directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the appellant herein. For ready reference, the order dated 08.08.2022 is extracted below: “08/08/22 Petitioner is in representation through his ld. Counsel: On perusal of case record, it appears that one month has elapsed from 21/06/22, regd. envelope has not returned back. So, it is presumed that the notice has been received by the O.P. as sufficient opportunity has been given to the O.P but he failed to appear before the Court. Therefore, for the interest of justice, the case is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. Petitioner is directed to produce witness on the next date. Put up on 18/08/22 for Ex-parte evidence. 15. This Court is conscious with the fact that in view of the provisions of Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897, there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. 16. In the case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani , (1989) 2 SCC 602 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “8. There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party, challenging the factum of service.” (Emphasis added) 17. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party, challenging the factum of service.” (Emphasis added) 17. It is evident from the order dated 08.08.2022 that the learned Family Judge has not taken recourse of even the substituted service of notice as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure even though the procedure which is to be followed as available in the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed by the learned Family Judge in view of the provision as contained under section 14 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT . 18. The learned family court erred in not appreciating the facts in the correct perspective as substituted service is meant to be resorted to serve the notice at the address known to the parties where the party had been residing last. 19. The order sheet of different dates of Family Court regarding service of notice indicate that in a routine manner order has been passed and there is no whispering that court has fully satisfied with the service of notice served upon the appellant-wife. 20. It requires to refer herein that when the order dated 08.08.2022 speaks about the notice deemed to be served then how such observation has been made in paragraph no.12 that the notice has duly been served upon the defendant (appellant herein). 21. Further it has not come on record that the respondent/wife (appellant herein) had refused to accept the registered letter and the same had been returned back by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. Herein the appellant/respondent had asserted that neither any service report regarding the service of summon is available on record nor any point of time the summon was served upon the appellant (defendant before the learned trial Court) and in absence of knowledge she could not filed her written statement opposing the prayer of plaintiff. 22. Further, the respondent husband has filed divorce petition making serious allegations against the wife/appellant. Having regard to the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant-wife, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have taken all possible steps in effecting service of notice upon the appellant and so as to afford opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits by filing a written statement and by cross-examination. 23. Having regard to the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant-wife, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have taken all possible steps in effecting service of notice upon the appellant and so as to afford opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits by filing a written statement and by cross-examination. 23. The order sheet dated 08.08.2022 clearly indicates that case has been fixed for ex-parte hearing without taking proper recourse. Thus, it appears that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge suffers from noncompliance of cardinal principle of natural justice. 24. It needs to refer herein that the case which is related to the matrimonial dispute concerning annulment of marriage or divorce proceeding is a serious matter and it connects entire life of husband and wife against whom a decree for declaration of nullity or divorce has been sought. In the said matter, the court should not follow mechanical approach for compliance of issuance of notice rather the court should take all statutory provision into account which is expected for appearance of the party. 25. This Court, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, is of the view that the learned Family Judge while posting the matter for ex-parte hearing on the fiction of being notice deemed to be served without taking all recourse available in the statute has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree need interference on the ground of providing an opportunity to the defendant-wife to defend herself (the appellant herein). 26. Thus, it is evident from order dated 08.08.2022 that the learned Court failed to adopt other mode of service of summon and proceeded ex-parte merely after completion of one month time from the date of issuance of notice without actual service of notice resulting into miscarriage of justice and passing of impugned judgement and decree and the same is liable to be set aside. 27. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2022 and the decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in Original Case No.14 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga is hereby quashed and set-aside. 28. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 29. 27. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2022 and the decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in Original Case No.14 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga is hereby quashed and set-aside. 28. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 29. The matter is remitted to the learned Family Court, Lohardaga by revival of the dispute being Original Case No.14 of 2022 to its original file so that the matter may be decided on its own merit in accordance with law. 30. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has undertaken before this Court that the appellant-wife will put her appearance before the learned Family Court, Lohardaga by filing Vakalatnama within three weeks from today. 31. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. 32. The trial court record be sent back forthwith.