JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed in Original Suit No.952 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court - II, Ranchi (in short, learned Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the suit filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty by filing an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed. 2. This Court has taken sincere efforts on the issue of settlement, but, both the parties have not agreed on the issue of settlement and as such, this Court has gone into the merits of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the memo of appeal and as has also been incorporated in the impugned judgment reads as under: (i) The case in brief is that the marriage between the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) and the opposite party-wife (appellant herein) was solemnized on 01.12.2021 according to Hindu Rites and customs in a banquet Hall at Sampatchak, Patna (Bihar) in presence of their relatives, friends, and well wishers. After solemnization of marriage, the opposite party came to the house of the petitioner and started living with him and his family members in her matrimonial home. The petitioner is practicing as Dentist at Singh More, Hatia and is the only son of his parents. His father has been superannuated from the post of Additional Secretary, Higher Education under the State of Jharkhand on 31.03.2018, while his mother is practicing Advocate at Ranchi and thus he belongs to a respected and reputed family. (ii) After 3 to 4 days of marriage, the petitioner became shocked when the opposite party demanded wine and cigarette from him. At the first instance, the petitioner thinks that she is joking, but thereafter, she pressurized him to fulfill her demand as early as possible and told him that she cannot control herself without taking wine and cigarettes and if he refuses to fulfill her demand, she herself will go to the market and purchase those items. The petitioner took it casually and tried to make her understand, but she became arrogant and threatened him to face dire consequences and that she will auction the respect and reputation of his family in the open market. The petitioner took it casually and tried to make her understand, but she became arrogant and threatened him to face dire consequences and that she will auction the respect and reputation of his family in the open market. When the mother of the petitioner asked the opposite party to come and assist her in cooking food for the family, so that she could learn about the taste of the family members and it will be ease her to take the charge of family in her absence, she straight forward denied to do so and told that she is an educated lady who didn't marry her son for cooking food for the family, so, it will be better to employee a maid for cooking and other allied purposes. The opposite party started going out of the residence for taking drinks and returned late night. When she was opposed by the petitioner and his parents, she started shouting and quarrel with them, but she didn't leave her habits rather, she used to keep wines and cigarettes with her all the times and whenever she likes, take drinks in home also in spite of this the opposite party never tried or interested to the same and told that she is not interested with males, having her habit of (Homosex) with same gender (girls) hence she never like to quench the sexual thrust of her husband and the life of petitioner became hell. (iii) The petitioner invested a sum to the tune of Rs. 17,80,000/- for purchasing Creta Car to the satisfaction of the Opposite party and he shifted her in the 2 nd floor of his house, so that she could live separately. The petitioner and his family members became frustrated with the arrogant behaviour of the opposite party and whenever, they tried to talk to her, she started abusive language with them. Finding no way out, the petitioner reported the conduct of the opposite party to his other in law Smt. Amrita Upadhyay and brother in law namely Sarvagya Upadhyay and Saurabh Upadhyay, who thereupon, came to Ranchi on 09.03.2022 alongwith Smt. Shambhawi Devi Wife of Sarvagya Upadhyay but in spite of taking to the opposite party, they started abusing the petitioner and told that she is a modern girl, who brought up with full independence and therefore, it would be better to give her independence. (iv) They also demanded Rs. (iv) They also demanded Rs. 50,000,000/- from the petitioner and his family members and threatened to involve all the family members in criminal case, if the said amount is not paid to them. She used to go to Patna as and when she wished and upon oppose, they threatened the petitioner that she will commit suicide. The petitioner against reported her conduct to her mother and thereupon, she came to Ranchi on 03.04.2022 and without taking consent of the husband or his parents, taken away the opposite party to Patna on 04.04.2022 with her entire clothings, ornaments and about forty thousand cash. Then the petitioner get confirmed and asked the opposite party on phone, who informed that yes she has picked up the said amount. (v) Thereafter, the husband reported the matter to the officer-in-charge. Tupudana P.S. vide written application dated 15.04.2022. Mother of the petitioner also filed a representation before the Chairperson, Jharkhand State Women's Commission on 17.04.2022 mentioning the entire matter. The arrogant behaviour of the wife as well as her family members is evident from the fact that they took away the opposite party with them without the consent of the petitioner or his parent on 04.04.2022, but they never tried to establish conjugal relationship between the parties. The husband and the wife are living separately from 04.04.2022, the day she was taken away by her mother without taking consent of the petitioner. In spite of best efforts of the relatives, friends and well wishers, relation between both the parties could not settled and they are living separately since 04.04.2022 and now they are not been able to live together in future also nor any chance of their reunion of conjugal life. (vi) The cause of action arose on 04.04.2022 when the parties started living separately and thereafter on several dates when the opposite party refuses to change her behaviour and live with the petitioner. (vii) Thereafter the respondent-husband had preferred a suit for decree of divorce under section 13 (I) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which has been instituted as Original Suit No. 952 of2022. (viii) Accordingly, notice was issued but respondent-wife did not appear thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the said suit ex parte. 4. (vii) Thereafter the respondent-husband had preferred a suit for decree of divorce under section 13 (I) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which has been instituted as Original Suit No. 952 of2022. (viii) Accordingly, notice was issued but respondent-wife did not appear thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the said suit ex parte. 4. It is evident from the materials available on record that the husband, the respondent herein, has filed an application for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty by filing an application under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Family Judge, at the first instance, has issued notice, upon the respondent-wife, (appellant herein). Thereafter the notice has been said to be served upon the respondent, but even then, the learned Family Judge, there was no appearance of the respondent-wife and as such, the case has been ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.05.2023. The learned trial court has allowed the appellant-husband to adduce evidence and the statement of altogether three witnesses have been recorded and the learned Family Judge, based upon the evidence as recorded of the witnesses, produced on behalf of the appellant, (respondent herein), has passed the decree of dissolution of marriage by coming to the conclusive finding that the ground of cruelty has successfully been proved. The said judgment is under challenge solely on the ground that the same has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-wife. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 5. The ground has been taken on behalf of the appellant- wife by referring to the very first paragraph of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Family Judge has while posting the matter for ex parte proceeding vide order dated 03.05.2023 cannot be said to be proper, since, the learned Family Judge has come to such finding by holding therein that in spite of service of summons on respondent and publication of summons in a daily local Newspaper in which the respondent resides, she did not appear. 6. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by referring the orders dated 14.03.2023 and 20.03.2023 for the purpose of taking the ground that whatever has been observed while posting the matter for ex parte proceeding cannot be said to be just and proper rather the same is against the principle of natural justice. 7. The order dated 14.03.2023 refers about the issuance of notice through the goswara, but, without getting a service report thereof, all of a sudden, on 20.03.2023 the draft of paper publication was accepted from the respondent-husband for allowing him to go for the paper publication for the purpose of securing appearance of the appellant-wife. 8. It has been contended that the procedure, which has been laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for securing the appearance of the parties, has not been followed and as such, while posting the case for ex parte proceeding vide order dated 03.05.2023 is an erroneous finding and basis upon which the impugned judgment since has been passed, the said judgment cannot be said to be proper and as such, on that ground alone, the impugned judgment needs interference so that the appellant-wife may have an opportunity to contest the case on merit. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband: 9. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has not disputed whatever is available on record however, he has submitted that the step to secure the appearance of the wife has been taken by filing notice through paper publication and even in spite of the paper publication when the appellant-wife has not appeared, the trial court has left no option but to post the case for ex parte proceeding and as such, the ground, which has been taken by the appellant-wife that the order by which the case has been posted for ex parte proceeding is incorrect and the wife has not been allowed to contest the case. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband that when the party had chosen not to appear, subsequently, such party cannot be allowed to take aid of the violation of natural justice or an opportunity to defend the case. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis: 12. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, and gone through the particular finding by which the trial court has posted the matter for proceeding herein which order was passed on 03.05.2023 and as such this Court has to consider by taking into consideration the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and as to whether the order dated 03.05.2023, passed by the learned Family Judge, posting the case for ex parte proceeding, suffers from error or not? 13. This Court before answering the said issue needs to refer herein the requirement to secure appearance of the party who is necessary party to the lis for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issue. 14. There is no dispute that the appellant-wife herein is the necessary party, since, the entire allegation of commission of cruelty has been alleged against the appellant-wife and as such, she had to be given an opportunity to rebut the said allegation. 15. It is also equally settled that the court is required to issue notice for the purpose of securing appearance of the concerned parties. The procedure to secure appearance is provided under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the applicability of the procedural law as available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The requirement, as per the law as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of securing the appearance of the parties, has already been dealt with and as per which it is the duty of the court to take all effective measures to secure the appearance of the parties concerned, i.e. by issuance of notice through registered post or through ordinary process and if on the basis of the settled procedure as laid down for securing the appearance, even the parties are not appearing, then the order is to be passed that too on the basis of application which is to be made by the party to go for the substituted service of notice through paper publication. 16. This Court needs to refer as to whether the process as laid down, as referred herein, has been followed by the learned Family Judge or not? 17. 16. This Court needs to refer as to whether the process as laid down, as referred herein, has been followed by the learned Family Judge or not? 17. This Court, in order to consider the same, has gone through the Lower Court Record which has been called for by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024. It appears from the order passed by the learned Family Judge dated 14.12.2022 by which the notice was issued with a direction upon the petitioner to file the requisites of notice. 18. It further appears from the order dated 27.01.2023 that the requisites were filed and steps for service of notice through registered post had been resorted to. 19. It also appears that the notice through registered post although had been sent, but, there is no reference of the effect of the registered notice which was issued in terms of the order passed by the learned Family Judge, since, on 27.01.2023 there is no specific report and the learned Family Judge has passed an order for effecting notice through goswara notice. Thereafter, on 16.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 the reference of goswara notice has been given by recording that the notice which was issued through ordinary process (goswara) had been directed to be awaited. But, it is evident from the order dated 20.03.2023 that the draft which has been filed by the petitioner, the respondent-husband herein, for paper publication has been accepted. Thereafter, the notice has been published in the daily local Hindi Newspaper for securing the appearance of the appellant-wife. 20. This Court, therefore, has found that neither the service report of the registered notice has been taken note by the learned Family Judge nor the goswara notice given to the office of the Registrar on 14.03.2023 awaiting for the goswara notice. But, the learned Family Judge even though no application was filed seeking leave to switch over through the alternative mode of service of notice and all of a sudden and on its own the respondent-husband has filed draft of paper publication, which has been accepted by the trial court. 21. But, the learned Family Judge even though no application was filed seeking leave to switch over through the alternative mode of service of notice and all of a sudden and on its own the respondent-husband has filed draft of paper publication, which has been accepted by the trial court. 21. The procedure has been laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure as under Order V Rule 20 for substituted service of notice and the same can be taken recourse if the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part 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. 22. The provision has been inserted as under (1A) of Order V Rule 20 where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain. 23. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the procedure as laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been followed and merely on the basis of the paper publication, the case has been posted for ex parte proceeding vide order dated 03.05.2023. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant since has challenged the said order only on the issue of ex parte hearing and as such, this Court is not going into the merits of the case. 25. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant since has challenged the said order only on the issue of ex parte hearing and as such, this Court is not going into the merits of the case. 25. This Court, based upon the aforesaid as has been referred hereinabove that the appellant being the wife and a contesting party upon whom the allegation of cruelty has been levelled by filing an application under Section 13(1) (ia)) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as such, she ought to have given all effective opportunities to contest the case by taking effective measures for the purpose of securing her appearance, but, the record suggests that no such efforts have been taken by the learned Family Judge. 26. Accordingly, the judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed in Original Suit No.952 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court - II, Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set-aside. 27. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 28. The matter is remitted to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court - II, Ranchi by revival of the dispute being Original Suit No.952 of 2022 to its original file so that the matter may be decided on its own merit in accordance with law. 29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has undertaken before this Court that the appellant-wife will participate in the proceeding. 30. The trial court record be sent back forthwith. 31. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.