SHASHI SHARMA Vs. SANJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The office report dated 16/02/2000 states that the paper publication which was made by the petitioner for the purpose of substituted service does not conform verbatim to the notice which was required to be published according to the copy given by the supreme Court to the petitioner. The office is, therefore, right in pointing out that the petitioner ought not to have abridged the substance of the notice without seeking appropriate approval of the Registry or of the court.

(2.) We, therefore, do not approve of the action of the petitioner in this behalf.

(3.) However, we notice that the petitioner is a house-wife with a child staying at Delhi who has been fighting this case against her husband, the later residing at Chennai. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are not directing fresh publication.