JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.09.2023 and decree dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.487 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit has been decreed by dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 18.04.2017 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. 2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the appeal is also available on record and incorporated in the impugned judgment which reads as under:- “The petitioner's case, in brief, is that the marriage between the parties has been solemnized on 18.04.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Sindwari Barkagaon, Hazaribagh. After marriage both the parties are resided at Tatisilwai, Ranchi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner is employee of Indian Army on the post of Radio Operator presently at Mumbai. Till completion of holiday of the petitioner, both the parties led a happy life and lived together as husband and wife but the respondent- wife did not allow the petitioner- husband for cohabitation. Lastly the petitioner returned back to his place of posting. Again in the month of October-2017 for 30 days and on 31st March, 2018 for 30 day the petitioner- husband came to his house on leave and joined the company of the respondent- wife, but she did not agree for sexual and physical relationship and refused for the same. The behaviour of the respondent- wife was very cruel towards the petitioner-husband and she started torturing the petitioner with physical and mental cruelty. She used to demand money and to fulfil the requirement of her Maika family members. The respondent-wife also filed a complaint before the Mahila Police Station and as per oral settlement there the respondent- wife received Rs.05- Lacs and thereafter both the parties are living separately since 25.08.2020. After separation the petitioner came to know in the month of November, 2021 that the respondent has illicit relation with her boyfriend. Brother of the respondent also sent a snap of the respondent after looking the petitioner got surprised that the respondent-wife is pregnant of 5 to 6 months. The family members of the respondent are very dangerous persons. After separation the petitioner came to know in the month of November, 2021 that the respondent has illicit relation with her boyfriend. Brother of the respondent also sent a snap of the respondent after looking the petitioner got surprised that the respondent-wife is pregnant of 5 to 6 months. The family members of the respondent are very dangerous persons. They have greedy eye over the money of the petitioner who instigated the respondent to put poison in food of family members of the petitioner and after their death all the property would be in her name. There is no child out of their wedlock as the respondent-wife never accept the petitioner-husband as her husband. Since 25.08.2020 the respondent-wife is living separately. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a prayer for a decree of divorce has been made by petitioner-husband before Family Court.” 3. Learned Family court had issued notice to the appellant-wife but on the pretext of her non-appearance, the proceeding has been set ex-parte hearing on 02.03.2023. Learned trial court had framed the following issues. i. Whether the petitioner-husband has been treated by the respondent-wife with cruelty? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce? 4. The learned Trial Court has examined altogether three witnesses adduced on behalf of the respondent-husband who is the petitioner in the suit, namely, Sudhir Kumar, the husband himself as P.W.-1, Reena Devi (mother of the plaintiff) as P.W.-2, and Kuldeep Ram (a friend of the respondent- husband) as P.W.-3. The testimonies of these witnesses are being refereed hereinbelow: - P.W.-1 is Sudhir Kumar (the appellant himself). Evidence of this witness is verbatim to the statements made by him in the plaint and has fully supported his case, thus, his evidence is not taken in detail. He has deposed that his marriage with the respondent has been solemnized on 18.04.2017 at Sindwari, Barkagaon, Harzaribagh. He is posted as Radio Operator in the Indian Army. After marriage he led some days with the respondent and returned back to Mumbai to join his service. Again' in the month of October, 2017 on leave he came to his house and during that period behaviour of the respondent- wife was not good towards him and his family members. She has not allowed him for establishing physical relation which caused mental agony and with heavy heart he returned back to join his service. Again' in the month of October, 2017 on leave he came to his house and during that period behaviour of the respondent- wife was not good towards him and his family members. She has not allowed him for establishing physical relation which caused mental agony and with heavy heart he returned back to join his service. Whenever, he came to his house the respondent- wife used to treat him with utmost cruelty and did not permit for cohabitation and also used to quarrel on petty matter. Meanwhile, the respondent lodged complaint before Mahila Police Station, where on the basis of compromise the respondent- wife received Rs.05-Lacs from the petitioner- wife on 25.08.2020 and since then they are living separately. In the month of November, 2021, he came to know that the respondent- wife has illicit relation with other person. He has deposed that behaviour of family members of the respondent- wife was not good towards him, who used to abuse him and also used to instigate the respondent- wife against him. P.W.-2 Reena Devi, mother of the petitioner, has fully supported and corroborated the case of the petitioner. She has deposed about the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. She has deposed that behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and her was not good. The respondent and her family members used to quarrel and abuse them. Her son is a military personnel and whenever his son (petitioner) came on leave the respondent did not treat him in proper manner. She lodged a complaint case bearing no. 714/2021 (Ext.1) and cognizance u/s 323, 341, 379/34 is taken against the respondent by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate- XXVIII, Ranchi on 16.04.2022 (Ext.2). The respondent- wife lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station where on the basis of compromise the respondent received Rs.05-Lacs on 25.08.2020 and since then the respondent is living separately having no physical or emotional attachment with her son (petitioner). P.W.-3 Kuldeep Ram, friend of the petitioner, has also fully supported the case and evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2. He has deposed about the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 18.04.2017. He has also deposed about the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members. P.W.-3 Kuldeep Ram, friend of the petitioner, has also fully supported the case and evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2. He has deposed about the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 18.04.2017. He has also deposed about the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members. The respondent had lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station and on the basis of settlement the respondent received Rs.05-Lacs from the petitioner on 25.08.2020 and since then both the parties are living separately. 5. The learned trial court has answered the issues based upon the deposition of aforesaid three witnesses and has come to the conclusive finding on the backdrop of the fact that there is no rebuttal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the witnesses and has passed the judgment of dissolution of marriage which is impugned in the present appeal. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has taken sole ground that the said judgment has been passed ex-parte without taking reference of the proper service of notice as it would be evident from the order sheet as appended to the trial court records, hence, the appellant-wife has not been given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-husband, thereby, ex-parte judgment has been passed. 7. It has, therefore, been contended that the impugned judgment and decree since have been passed ex-parte and no case behalf of the appellant could be brought on the record which made the assertion of the plaintiff/husband through his evidence oral and documentary and remained unrebutted therefore, the impugned judgment and decree need to be interfered with. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, while defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the trial court was having no option but to set the proceeding ex-parte on the pretext of the fact that the notice has been issued but it is the appellant-wife, who has chosen not to appear and defend herself. Hence, the trial court has posted the matter for ex-parte hearing. 9. It has been submitted that once the appellant-wife has chosen not to appear before the concerned court, it is not available for appellant-wife to take the ground of ex-parte hearing. 10. Hence, the trial court has posted the matter for ex-parte hearing. 9. It has been submitted that once the appellant-wife has chosen not to appear before the concerned court, it is not available for appellant-wife to take the ground of ex-parte hearing. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial court suffers from no error, hence, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, and gone through the material available on record. But before proceeding it needs to refer that the instant Appeal was barred by limitation of 156 days which has been condoned vide order dated 21.01.2025. For ready reference the same is being quoted as under:- “Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No.9547 of 2024 stands disposed of.” 12. The sole ground as has been taken by the appellant wife 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. 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 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 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. 15. It is also 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. 16. 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, 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. 17. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, primarily on the issue of ex-parte hearing, has gone through the trial court records which we have called upon vide order dated 21.01.2025. 18. It is evident from the order dated 15.06.2022 of the Family court that the notice has been issued upon the respondent (herein the appellant-wife). 19. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the case was deferred and posted for 18.07.2022, waiting for the appearance of the appellant-wife. 20. It is further evident from the order dated 23.11.2022 that the Family court has passed the order by issuing direction upon the respondent-husband to take steps for service of notice through the substituted mode of service. The steps so taken and thereafter, the service has been shown completed and in consequence thereof, the proceeding has been set ex-parte hearing vide order dated 02.03.2023. 21. From leading reference as available in the part of the record, all the three orders of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi are being referred hereinbelow: - “Order dated 15.06.2022: Petitioner is in attendance. Heard the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner and perused the case record and office note submitted by the sheristedar. The case is maintainable hence, Let it be Admitted. Heard the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner and perused the case record and office note submitted by the sheristedar. The case is maintainable hence, Let it be Admitted. Petitioner is directed to take step for notice to respondent through speed post and Goswara within a week and office is directed to issue notice after proper verification. Put up on 18.07.2022 for awaiting Service Report/appearance of respondent. Order dated 23.11.2022 Petitioner is represented. Respondent is absent. Petitioner filed a petition with prayer for Gazette Publication. Heard. Prayer is allowed. Petitioner is directed to take steps for Gazette Publication of notice against respondent in most circulated newspaper. Put up on 14.12.2022 for appearance of O.P. Order dated 02.03.2023 Petitioner is in attendance. O.P. is absent. Heard and perused the case record. It appears that service of notice against O.P. was assured sufficient on 27.01.2023 but till today respondent has not yet appeared. Hence this case will proceed ex-parte against respondent. Put up on 23.03.2023 for ex-parte evidence.” 22. We have conscious that the ex-parte hearing is the requirement as per the statute but before reaching to such conclusion, it is bounded duty of the concerned court to take effective steps for service of notice upon the concerned party so that the appearance must be secured. 23. However, even if effective service of notice is being taken but the concerned party has chosen not to appear then the recourse is to be taken by switching over from the mode of service of notice by way of paper publication. Thereafter, the court is to post the matter for ex-parte hearing on the principle that if the party, even after service of the notice, has chosen not to appear then the other party why to suffer. 24. But it is also equally settled that before switching over to the mode of substituted service of notice, the court has to await for the service of notice and the same is to be based upon the valid report of the process server, so as to take a final call to allow the party concerned to go for the substituted service of notice. 25. 25. This Court has found from these three orders i.e. orders dated 15.06.2022, 23.11.2022 & 02.03.2023 passed by the learned family court wherein, there is no reference of the report of the process server regarding effective steps taken on behalf of the petitioner (in the suit). 26. It is evident that in two dates, the case has been adjourned awaiting for the appearance of wife (the appellant herein) and stayed away and on 23.11.2022 the learned Family Judge has gone into the mode of paper publication. 27. This Court considered the said finding by posting the case for ex-parte hearing by the court concerned to be an error which cause serious prejudice to the appellant-wife, since, she has not got an opportunity to rebut what has been deposed on behalf of the respondent-husband, the petitioner to the suit. 28. 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 rather the court should take all statutory provision into account which is expected for appearance of the party. 29. 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 has been levelled by filing an application under 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. 30. 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 has not taken the proper recourse for appearance of the opposite party available in the statute and has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. 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). 31. This Court has considered the aforesaid ground sufficient to interfere with the impugned judgment. 32. 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). 31. This Court has considered the aforesaid ground sufficient to interfere with the impugned judgment. 32. Accordingly, the judgment dated 05.09.2023 and decree dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.487 of 2022 (in short, learned Family Judge), is hereby quashed and set-aside. 33. In consequence thereof, the Original Suit No. 487 of 2022 is restored to its original file. 34. The learned Family Court, Ranchi is directed to proceed afresh by passing the order afresh on its own merit. 35. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has undertaken to appear before the concerned Family Court, Ranchi on 10.11.2025. The due appearance of the respondent-husband also on the said date so there may not be any delay in the proceeding. 36. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the instant appeal is hereby disposed of. 37. Pending I.As. if any, stands disposed of. 38. The Trial Court Records be sent back forthwith.